Blue Earth Consultants, LLC 1 | P a g e DRAFT MEPA Trust ... · Blue Earth Consultants, ......

Blue Earth Consultants, LLC 1 | P a g e DRAFT MEPA Trust Grant-Making Framework

Prepared by Blue Earth Consultants, LLC i | P a g e MEPA Trust Grant-Making Framework

Photo Credits

Left: English Harbour, Antigua Photo Credit: Prayitano, Flickr

Right Top: Beach at Green Island, Antigua Photo Credit: Andrew Moore, Flickr

Right Bottom: Reef in Antigua Photo Credit: John Davies, Flickr

Contact Information

Blue Earth Consultants, LLC www.blueearthconsultants.com

Disclaimer

Blue Earth Consultants, LLC made every effort to ensure that the information contained in this report is accurate, complete, and obtained from reliable sources. However, much of the data and information in this report is drawn from perceptions gathered through telephone interviews, online surveys, discussions, and relevant documents. Blue Earth Consultants, LLC makes no guarantee of the completeness or accuracy of information provided.

Project Partners

http://www.blueearthconsultants.com/

Prepared by Blue Earth Consultants, LLC ii | P a g e MEPA Trust Grant-Making Framework

Table of Contents

MARINE ECOSYSTEMS PROTECTED AREA TRUST DRAFT GRANT-MAKING FRAMEWORK ....................................... 1

BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

THE CARIBBEAN BIODIVERSITY FUND AND NATIONAL CONSERVATION TRUST FUNDS ................................................................... 1 ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA MARINE ECOSYSTEMS PROTECTED AREA TRUST ................................................................................. 2 PURPOSE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................... 2

Methods ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

CONTEXT, THREATS, AND NEEDS ........................................................................................................................... 3

COUNTRY DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 4 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND PROTECTED AREA CONTEXT .............................................................................................. 4 KEY THREATS TO MARINE ECOSYSTEM HEALTH .................................................................................................................... 5 MANAGEMENT NEEDS .................................................................................................................................................... 7

MEPA TRUST VISION, MISSION, CORE VALUES, AND GOALS .................................................................................. 9

VISION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 MISSION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 CORE VALUES ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 GRANT-MAKING GOALS ................................................................................................................................................ 10

THREE-YEAR LOGIC MODEL .................................................................................................................................. 11

KEY STRATEGIES AND MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................... 11 Key Strategies ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Measures of Performance ................................................................................................................................... 11

THREE-YEAR LOGIC MODEL ............................................................................................................................................ 12

FUNDING ALLOCATION GUIDELINES .................................................................................................................... 17

PRIORITIES FOR ALLOCATING FUNDING ............................................................................................................................. 17 DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM FUNDING ............................................................................................................................. 17 CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY OF PROTECTED AREAS ................................................................................................................. 17 ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 NON-ELIGIBLE PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................................... 18 PROJECTS AND GRANT TYPES THE MEPA TRUST WILL SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 19

THE GRANT MAKING PROCESS ............................................................................................................................. 20

STEP 1: GRANT-MAKING STRATEGY ................................................................................................................................. 20 Criteria for Scoring Grants .................................................................................................................................. 21 Technical Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................................ 21

STEP 2: PROPOSAL SOLICITATION AND OUTREACH .............................................................................................................. 22 Concept Notes ..................................................................................................................................................... 22

STEP 3: REVIEWING AND AWARDING GRANTS ................................................................................................................... 22 Review of Concept Notes .................................................................................................................................... 22 Review of Full Proposals and Awarding Grants .................................................................................................. 23

STEP 4: MEPA TRUST AND GRANTEE IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................... 23 STEP 5: GRANTEE CLOSE ................................................................................................................................................ 24 STEP 6: MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING .......................................................................................................... 24

Grantee Reporting and Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 24

Prepared by Blue Earth Consultants, LLC iii | P a g e MEPA Trust Grant-Making Framework

MEL Process to Monitor MEPA Trust Progress .................................................................................................... 25 Reporting Structures ........................................................................................................................................... 26

CROSS-CUTTING STEP: COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 26

RISKS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................... 27

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX A: STRATEGIC PLANNING DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................... 31 Strategic Planning Terms .................................................................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX B: EXTERNAL DOCUMENT FOR GRANTEES ........................................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX C: ONLINE SURVEY ......................................................................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW GUIDE ...................................................................................................................................... 39 APPENDIX E: DOCUMENT REVIEW FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................................ 45 APPENDIX F: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED .................................................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX G: EXAMPLE CONCEPT NOTE FORM .................................................................................................................. 50 APPENDIX H: EXAMPLES OF GRANT-MAKING FORMS .......................................................................................................... 52

Example Grant Agreement .................................................................................................................................. 52 Example End of Project Form .............................................................................................................................. 59

APPENDIX I: EXAMPLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY ......................................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX J: EXAMPLE GRANT-MAKING CRITERIA SCORE SHEET ............................................................................................ 65 APPENDIX K: EXAMPLE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS .......................................................................................................... 69 APPENDIX L: FOCUS GROUP PRESENTATION ...................................................................................................................... 71 APPENDIX M: FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT LIST ................................................................................................................. 72 APPENDIX N: MEPA TRUST KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS PRESENTATION .................................................................................... 73 APPENDIX O: MEPA TRUST BOARD MEETING ATTENDEES ................................................................................................... 74

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. THREATS AND PRESSURES TO MARINE ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY (DOCUMENT REVIEW) ........................................... 5 FIGURE 2. THREATS AND PRESSURES TO MARINE ECOSYSTEMS (ONLINE SURVEY) ........................................................................... 6 FIGURE 3. MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES AND NEEDS (DOCUMENT REVIEW) ...................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 4. PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT NEEDS (ONLINE SURVEY) ......................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 5. THE GRANT-MAKING PROCESS ............................................................................................................................. 20

List of Tables

TABLE 1. GOAL 1 LOGIC MODEL .......................................................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 2. GOAL 2 LOGIC MODEL .......................................................................................................................................... 15 TABLE 3. GOAL 3 LOGIC MODEL .......................................................................................................................................... 16 TABLE 4. RISK FACTORS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................ 27 TABLE 5. DEFINITIONS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING TERMS ........................................................................................................... 31

https://blueearthconsult.sharepoint.com/sites/tnc-wbeasterncarib2016/Deliverables/AB%20Framework/Revised%20framework/MEPA_Trust_Grantmaking_Framework_010316_clean.docx#_Toc463280449

https://blueearthconsult.sharepoint.com/sites/tnc-wbeasterncarib2016/Deliverables/AB%20Framework/Revised%20framework/MEPA_Trust_Grantmaking_Framework_010316_clean.docx#_Toc463280451

Prepared by Blue Earth Consultants, LLC 1 | P a g e MEPA Trust Grant-Making Framework

Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust DRAFT Grant-Making Framework

Background

Established in 2015, the Marine Ecosystems Protected Area (MEPA) Trust is dedicated to the protection,

recovery, and effective management of Antigua and Barbuda’s protected areas (PAs) to build resilience

to the impacts of climate change. This Grant-Making Framework will guide the MEPA Trust’s grant-

making activities as it works to fulfill its purpose and achieve its goals, building on the processes

described in the MEPA Trust’s draft Operational Manual (MEPA Trust 2016). As a living document, this

Grant-Making Framework may be adapted as the MEPA Trust matures and gathers information and

feedback through its monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) process (see the Monitoring,

Evaluation, and Learning section). This section provides the background and context for the Caribbean

Biodiversity Fund (CBF) and the MEPA Trust and describes the purpose and development of this

document.

The Caribbean Biodiversity Fund and National Conservation Trust Funds

In 2008, Caribbean governments formed the Caribbean Challenge Initiative (CCI) in response to the

degradation of valuable marine and coastal resources (MEPA Trust 2015a). Following the establishment

of the CCI, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank funded and The Nature

Conservancy (TNC) implemented the Sustainable Financing and Management of Eastern Caribbean

Marine Ecosystems Project. Under this project, partners established the CBF, a regional endowment

fund whose objective is to provide sustainable funding for activities that conserve, protect, and maintain

the biodiversity within national PA systems or other areas of environmental significance (CBF 2015a).

The eight participating Caribbean countries1 and a group of international funders established the CBF in

2012 to provide a small, assured, and long-term funding stream to complement other funding sources

for biodiversity conservation and protection and fill the financing gaps related to PA management in the

region (World Bank 2011). Donors including the Government of Germany through the German

Development Bank (KfW), the GEF through the World Bank and the United Nations Development

Programme, and TNC provided US$42 million to capitalize the CBF endowment (CBF 2015a).

CBF funds are distributed to finance activities in participating countries through new, legally

independent national conservation trust funds (NCTFs) established in each participating country. NCTFs

will channel CBF disbursements as well as any other sources of sustainable funding (e.g., fees from

tourism development, PA entrance fees, private donations, payment for environmental services,

government funds, etc.) to finance sustainable management activities in PAs and critical marine

ecosystems (World Bank 2011). NCTFs must generate funding on a dollar-for- dollar basis to match any

1 The eight participating countries in the CBF are: Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and The Bahamas. The British Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are observers to the CBF Board.


funds requested from the CBF (MEPA Trust 2015a). CBF funds will remain in accounts designated for

Antigua and Barbuda until the MEPA Trust requests funding and sends the accompanying match

information to the CBF; therefore, the MEPA Trust’s CBF account will accrue interest even in the event

that it does not generate matching dollars to request funds for a given year (CBF 2015b).

Antigua and Barbuda Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust

Leadership representing civil society, the private sector, and government founded the MEPA Trust in

2015 as a non-profit company, drawing upon existing institutional strengths and ensuring an innovative

and multi-sectoral perspective (MEPA Trust 2015b). The World Bank, TNC, and the CBF provided

technical support for this process. Developed initially to manage funding flows that will be generated by

the CBF, the MEPA Trust was designed to accommodate a diverse range of funding flows that will

catalyze and support the protection, recovery, and effective management of Antigua and Barbuda’s PAs.

The MEPA Trust’s mandate extends beyond the management of CBF funds, and the MEPA Trust will seek

to generate additional sustainable funding to support climate change adaptation, mitigation, and other

important climate and sustainability goals. For example, Antigua and Barbuda’s Sustainable Island

Resource Framework (SIRF) Fund, which was established by the Environmental Protection and

Management Act and is being operationalized by the Department of Environment (DoE), will supply the

MEPA Trust’s required matching funds (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2016). To receive matching

funds from the SIRF, the MEPA Trust will use a portion of its portfolio to support projects that

demonstrate an ecosystem-based approach to mitigating the threat of climate change by protecting

wetlands and coastal watersheds with carbon sequestration potential and maintaining these areas as

carbon sinks.

Grants from the MEPA Trust can be used to support the following types of activities, which the MEPA

Trust may revise as needed: direct biodiversity conservation and regeneration, survey and research,

biodiversity conservation education and skills development, hunting/fishing/wildlife control, sustainable

tourism, and monitoring (MEPA Trust 2016), as well as the conservation of wetlands and watersheds

that may serve as carbon sinks (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2015b). The MEPA Trust is

committed to collaborating with stakeholders to determine grant-making activities and will continue to

engage communities in all projects funded by the Trust (MEPA Trust 2015a).

The MEPA Trust Bylaws dictate that the Trust will be governed by a Board of Directors comprised of

Founder Member Directors and Non-Government Directors. Founder Member Directors will represent

the government of Antigua and Barbuda, non-government entities, and other persons admitted to

membership to replace a Founder Member so long as the Board maintains a majority non-government-

affiliated Directors. Non-Government Directors will be appointed by non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) or other organizations representing sustainable use of coastal resources, interest in tourism,

interest in national and/or marine parks, and TNC. The MEPA Trust will have no more than 11 Directors.

The Officers of the MEPA Trust are the Chair, the Vice-Chair, the Chief Executive Officer and the

Secretary-Treasurer, and other such officers as the Board deems appropriate (MEPA Trust 2015b).

Purpose and Development of this Document

To address the need for long-term and reliable funding for PAs in the Caribbean region, Antigua and

Barbuda and other Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States member countries partnered with


international funders under the GEF/World Bank funded and TNC implemented Sustainable Financing

and Management of Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystems Project. This document – a deliverable

produced under component one of the project, which promotes the development of a sustainable

financing architecture in the Eastern Caribbean – outlines the threats and needs to natural resources

and biodiversity in Antigua and Barbuda; the vision, mission, goals, and strategies that will guide the

MEPA Trust over the coming years; the performance measures the MEPA Trust will use to assess

progress; the logic model that demonstrates how the MEPA Trust will work towards its vision during the

next three years; and the funding allocation guidelines and grant-making process that will guide the

MEPA Trust as it becomes operational. As previously noted, this document provides guidance for the

MEPA Trust through the lens of the partnership with the CBF and the GEF/World Bank and TNC project;

however, the mandate of the MEPA Trust is broader than the scope of the project, and this document

can be adapted to reflect the MEPA Trust’s strategic direction as is necessary. This document and

project process are intended to serve as a model to guide other NCTFs in the region in developing grant-

making frameworks. This document is accompanied by a Guidance Document intended for external

audiences (Appendix B).

Methods To develop this Grant-Making Framework, the MEPA Trust worked with Blue Earth Consultants, LLC

(Blue Earth) to conduct a strategic visioning and planning process. The purpose of this process was to 1)

identify grant-making priorities through reviewing key documents related to Antigua and Barbuda’s

biodiversity and natural resources and gathering stakeholder input from a wide range of sectors, 2)

determine funding allocations, and 3) outline the approach to grant-making for the MEPA Trust.

Blue Earth conducted a rapid assessment through online surveys with 25 key stakeholders (Appendix C)

and five follow-up telephone interviews (Appendix D), as well as document review (Appendix E) to

determine key ecosystems threats and management priorities and identify potential goals, guidelines,

priorities, and funding allocations for the MEPA Trust. Blue Earth compiled and synthesized the

information gathered during the rapid assessment to develop a detailed straw proposal of the Grant-

Making Framework. Blue Earth travelled to Antigua to present the research findings and the Grant-

Making Framework straw proposal, discuss, and solicit feedback at a focus group of 18 key stakeholders

(Appendix L; Appendix M) and a meeting with 10 members of the MEPA Trust Board (Appendix N;

Appendix O). Following the meetings, Blue Earth compiled the findings from preliminary research and

feedback from the focus group and Board meeting to prepare this Grant-Making Framework.

Context, Threats, and Needs

Antigua and Barbuda is home to diverse marine and coastal ecosystems including beaches, coral reefs,

seagrass beds, mangroves, wetlands, and oceanic islands and rocks (Government of Antigua and

Barbuda 2014a). The country is in the process of establishing a system of PAs that includes some of the

islands’ diverse and sensitive ecosystems (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a). Despite their

intrinsic and economic value, Antigua and Barbuda’s PAs and ecosystems face significant ecological

threats from climate change as well as other factors (e.g., invasive species, and anthropogenic impacts).

Considering these threats, the MEPA Trust must identify and support key management needs to protect

and maintain Antigua and Barbuda’s PAs. This section describes the context, threats, and needs that

underpin the MEPA Trust’s grant-making approach.


Country Description

The archipelagic state of Antigua and Barbuda is comprised of two primary populated islands and a

number of uninhabited smaller islands (Caribsave 2012). The islands are located in the Caribbean Sea

and the Atlantic Ocean at the center of the leeward island chain, about 250 miles southeast of Puerto

Rico (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a). An internationally recognized biodiversity hotspot,

Antigua and Barbuda is particularly known for its high biodiversity in the marine and coastal

environment (Caribsave 2012). The islands and their waters support a number of globally and regionally

important habitats and species, such as Codrington Lagoon, the largest saltwater, coastal lagoon in the

Caribbean; nesting beaches for threatened turtle species; and many types of rare species (e.g., the

Antiguan racer snake, hawksbill turtles, and the West Indian whistling duck) (Government of Antigua

and Barbuda 2014a; Caribsave 2012; Jackson 2008). Antigua and Barbuda recognizes the importance of

preserving and protecting its marine habitats and natural resources for their intrinsic value, the

protection they provide against climate change impacts to vulnerable coastal areas, their carbon

sequestration potential, and their role as the mainstay of the country’s economically important tourism

industry (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a; Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2015b).

Biodiversity Conservation and Protected Area Context

As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Antigua and Barbuda is

committed to conserving its valuable biodiversity and natural resources, as outlined in the country’s

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a).

Notably, Antigua and Barbuda passed the Environment Protection and Management Act and established

the DoE in 2015 to integrate and coordinate the sustainable management and conservation of natural

resources in Antigua and Barbuda (The Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2015a). In addition, Antigua

and Barbuda communicated its Intentionally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015, including the target of protecting all

remaining wetlands and watershed areas with carbon sequestration potential as carbon sinks by 2030

(Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2015b). Recognizing the importance of PAs to biodiversity

conservation and carbon sequestration, Antigua and Barbuda is working towards meeting Aichi

Biodiversity Target 11 and its INDC by taking steps to implement PAs and establish a national system of

PAs for the management and conservation of biodiversity by 2020 (Government of Antigua and Barbuda

2014b; Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2015b). This commitment is also represented in the goals

of Antigua and Barbuda’s NBSAP (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a). Antigua and Barbuda’s

system of PAs will include terrestrial areas, wetlands and watershed areas as indicated in the country’s

INDC, areas important to migratory species, and marine environments (Government of Antigua and

Barbuda 2014a; Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2015b). The government of Antigua and Barbuda

has taken steps towards meeting this target by initiating the identification, legalization, and

development of PAs and preparing a draft systems plan for PA management, as well as an action plan

for the management of PAs (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a; Drayton and Devine 2010).

Though the establishment of PAs represents a significant step towards meeting Antigua and Barbuda’s

conservation goals, there are a number of activities that will improve the management of PAs in Antigua

and Barbuda that have yet to be implemented (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a; 2014b;

Drayton and Devine 2010). Furthermore, marine and terrestrial ecosystems in Antigua and Barbuda face

growing pressure from climate change, development, and other threats to ecosystem health,


necessitating stronger management of PAs country-wide (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a;

2014b). As the national mechanism for sustainable funding of PAs and ecosystem protection, the MEPA

Trust is an integral component of Antigua and Barbuda’s national conservation and management

strategy and international commitments.

Key Threats to Marine Ecosystem Health

Antigua and Barbuda’s valuable marine and coastal ecosystems face increasing pressure from a suite of

threats. The NBSAP and the Fifth National Biodiversity Report for Antigua and Barbuda identify

anthropogenic impacts related to economic and social development, as well as emerging threats from

invasive species and climate change, as top threats to Antigua and Barbuda’s biodiversity and ecosystem

health (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a; 2014b). Overall, 80% percent of key documents

reviewed highlight the threat of impacts from tourism and recreation and pollution, including impacts

from sedimentation and erosion, as top threats (Figure 1; Appendix F). Tourism, pollution, and coastal

development are often highlighted as interrelated threats. For example, improper sewage treatment

facilities and desalination plants operated by hotels degrade coastal water quality (Ecoengineering

Caribbean Limited 2007), demonstrating how tourism-related coastal development contributes to

pollution. In other cases, tourism can cause impacts that are unrelated to pollution (e.g., trampling of

coral reefs by tourists), and development from non-tourism sectors can contribute to pollution and

degradation of the coastal zone.

Figure 1. Threats and Pressures to Marine Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Document Review)

To supplement the document review, the MEPA Trust worked with Blue Earth to identify stakeholder’s

perceptions of key threats to ecosystem health and biodiversity (Box 1) to determine strategies for

addressing these threats through its grant-making priorities and allocations.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Tourism and recreation

Pollution, sedimentation, erosion

Coastal development

Unsustainable fishing practices

Other unsustainable resource use

Habitat loss

Invasive species

Lack of capacity

Natural disasters

Climate change

Other

Percent Documents (n=10)

Eco

syst

em a

nd

Bio

div

ersi

ty T

hre

ats


Box 1. Stakeholder Perceptions of Key Threats

Top threats identified by survey respondents included the development and transformation of coastal

areas and climate change, with 65% of respondents selecting these issues as one of their top three threats

(Figure 2).

Figure 2. Threats and Pressures to Marine Ecosystems (Online Survey)

Interview respondents elaborated on these threats, emphasizing the connections between coastal

development, tourism, pollution, and the deterioration of coastal water quality.

Building on the research findings, Blue Earth facilitated a discussion on key threats to marine ecosystems

during a focus group with stakeholders. Generally, the focus group agreed with the list of threats, and

named a few additional threats, including:

• Lack of political will and corruption

• Poverty

• Prioritizing economy over ecology

• Accountability for use of public and private funds

• Lack of long-term, holistic, and conservation thinking

• Lack of alignment among national plans and policies related to the environment

• Limited interagency coordination

• Limited prosecution of illegal actions

• Lack of conservation education

• Need to consider different threats for Antigua vs. Barbuda

Key informant quote:

“Coastal development

has led to the

transformation of

ecosystems. We have

lost coastal wetlands,

and beaches have been

impacted by erosion.”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other

Recreational use and tourism

Invasive species

Pollution

Overfishing

Poor management of marine ecosystems

Climate change

Coastal area development

Percent Responses (n=23)Thre

ats

to M

arin

e Ec

osy

stem

s


Management Needs

The MEPA Trust will be integral to supporting the management of Antigua and Barbuda’s PAs and

sensitive ecosystems; thus, initial research also focused on identifying top management needs to inform

its grant-making activities. A review of key documents identified a suite of management priorities and

needs for PAs and ecosystems (Figure 3; Appendix F). All documents highlighted the need for general

management and operational capacity, livelihoods and sustainable use, and a strong policy and legal

framework. For example, the NBSAP identifies the ongoing effort to develop and enhance the capacity

to manage PAs and sustainable use areas together with their associated biodiversity as a top activity for

achieving the objectives of the strategy (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2014a).

Figure 3. Management Priorities and Needs (Document Review)

The MEPA Trust also worked with Blue Earth to identify stakeholder’s perceptions of management

needs for PAs (Box 2) to guide the development of the MEPA Trust’s goals and grant-making criteria.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Enforcement capacity

Disaster planning

Research and data collection

Monitoring, evaluation, assessment

Outreach and education

Social capital and partnership

Sustainable funding/financing

Planning and mitigation of tourism/recreation

Strong management plan

Strong policy and legal framework

Livelihoods and sustainable use

General management/operational capacity

Percent Documents (n=8)

Man

agem

ent

Pri

ori

ties

an

d N

eed

s


Box 2. Stakeholder Perceptions of Management Needs

Over 58% of respondents identified sustainable funding to support PA management as one of their top

three needs for PA management in Antigua and Barbuda. Half of respondents identified the need to build

capacity to support strong enforcement of PAs as a top priority (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Protected Area Management Needs (Online Survey)

Interview respondents also spoke to the need for sustainable funding and increased enforcement capacity,

including the need for onsite wardens dedicated to enforcing PA regulations and the funding to support

these positions. Additionally, interview respondents emphasized the importance of a cohesive legal and

policy framework including the adoption and implementation of the systems plan, as well as a commitment

to fostering trust and engagement amongst stakeholders.

Management needs identified for individual PAs in Antigua and Barbuda varied across sites due to different

social factors, environmental conditions, and levels of management effectiveness and implementation.

Survey and interview respondents explained that though some PAs may have management plans,

components of these plans are not necessarily being implemented. The majority of informants ranked the

Northeast Marine Management Area (NEMMA) and the Codrington Lagoon National Park as high priorities

(95% and 73%, respectively) in terms of needs for effective management to ensure protection again

ecosystems threats, citing a lack of enforcement in the NEMMA and the clearing of wetlands for

development in Codrington Lagoon as specific examples. Several respondents expressed the concern that

some parks are little more than paper parks, lacking guidelines as well as institutional, administrative and

legal support.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Education and outreach

Monitoring

Strong management plan

Stakeholder support and engagement

Legal and policy framework

Enforcement

Sustainable funding

Percent Responses (n=24)

Nee

ds

Key informant quote:

“Financing…would do

greatly in terms of

allowing these institutions

to implement

management strategies

and priorities.”


MEPA Trust Vision, Mission, Core Values, and Goals

Based on the biodiversity conservation and PA context, threats, and management needs outlined above,

the MEPA Trust will direct its efforts strategically to achieve a unifying vision and mission, outlined

below.

Vision

Antigua and Barbuda’s marine and terrestrial ecosystems are vibrant and healthy, natural and human

communities are adaptive and resilient to change, and ecosystems are sustained for future generations.

Mission

Work with multi-sectoral partners2 to catalyze and support the protection, recovery, and effective

management of Antigua and Barbuda’s protected areas to build resilience to the impacts of climate

change.

Core Values

Core values describe inherent characteristics of an organization that outline its character and the

principles it will endeavor to uphold while working to achieve its vision and mission. Throughout its

efforts, the MEPA Trust will strive to abide by the following core values:

2 Multi-sectoral partners include coastal residents and resource users, fisherfolk, the private sector (e.g., tourism operators, businesses), government and NGO partners, and other parties working toward the conservation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

Box 2 (Continued). Stakeholder Perceptions of Management Needs

During the focus group, stakeholders recommended a number of additional management needs, including:

Surveillance and prosecution of regulatory infractions

Data collection on ecosystem conditions

Collaborative citizen science

Stronger fisheries management

Effective implementation of existing policies

Co-management and collaborative management arrangements with stakeholders (e.g., fishermen,

tourism operators)

Functioning NEMMA Board

Navigational markers

Political will and accountability

Broad involvement of non-traditional stakeholders in management (e.g., churches, hotel

associations)


Transparency and Integrity: The MEPA Trust is committed to openness, transparency, and

honesty in its operations and in issuing grants. Toward this end, the MEPA Trust will develop and

implement effective MEL mechanisms and share these with grantees and other relevant

stakeholders to promote transparency of all of their actions and decisions.

Cooperation and Inclusivity: The MEPA Trust will work in partnership with communities and

NGOs, academia, government agencies, and the private sector. The MEPA Trust will engage and

share information with diverse stakeholders, including private businesses (e.g., dive shops,

hotels), fisherfolk and fisherfolk associations, other community-based organizations, NGOs,

academia, and government agencies.

Conservation and Sustainability: The MEPA Trust will work towards and in support of the

conservation and sustainability of Antigua and Barbuda’s ecosystems and species. The MEPA

Trust will also work to uphold these values in their internal operations, and will work to use

environmentally sustainable practices at all times.

Accountability: The MEPA Trust is accountable for all actions and decisions internally and to

their constituents.

Capacity Building: The MEPA Trust is committed to capacity building both internally and

externally, and will work to build capacity through implementing best practices from

conservation trust funds (CTFs), learning from their activities, participating in and supporting

grantee participation in relevant capacity building trainings and workshops, and amending their

processes and actions to improve the achievement of their goals.

Empowerment and Equity: The MEPA Trust is internally and externally committed to respecting

and helping empower communities and individuals throughout Antigua and Barbuda, and as a

non-partisan group, it will work to ensure equity in engaging with partners and throughout the

grant-making process.

Dedication and Volunteerism: The MEPA Trust Board serves on a voluntary basis and is

dedicated to continued service of the MEPA Trust’s vision and mission.

Grant-Making Goals

In consideration of the Vision and Mission of the MEPA Trust, the MEPA Trust will work toward

achieving the following Goals in the next five to seven years. While the goals are focused on protection

of ecosystems and PAs, working towards these goals will enable the MEPA Trust to help ecosystems and

communities respond to the impacts of climate change and support the climate and sustainability goals

of the SIRF and other partners:

Goal 1 – Protect and Enhance Ecosystems: Protect and enhance critical ecosystems in Antigua and

Barbuda to help reduce disaster risk, sequester carbon, and strengthen resilience against climate change

and unsustainable development.

Goal 2 – Strengthen the governance and management effectiveness of PAs: Strengthen the effective

management of Antigua and Barbuda’s PAs and promote outreach and education on effective PA

governance and management.

Goal 3 – Increased human and financial resources for PAs from governments and communities:

Collaborate with multi-sectoral partners to strengthen social capital and political will for PAs in support

of increased sustainable funding for PA establishment, implementation, and effective management.


Three-Year Logic Model

Drawing from the Vision and Mission, the Logic Model describes more specifically how the MEPA Trust

intends to achieve each of its goals. In the Logic Model, the implementation of activities and broader

strategies leads to the production of five-year outcomes and shorter-term midpoint objectives. To

assess progress toward each outcome, the MEPA Trust will use measures of progress, also described in

this section, that will help track performance (see Appendix A for strategic planning terms and

definitions).

Key Strategies and Measures of Performance

Key Strategies To achieve its goals, the MEPA Trust will apply seven external and internal strategies:

External Strategies

1. Capacity for PA Governance and Management Increased: Strengthen PA management and

governance capacity by supporting development and implementation of PA management plans

and planning for PA governance

2. Long-Term Investments Secured: Support efforts to catalyze sustainable funding for long-term

ecosystem protection, PA effectiveness, and sufficient PA operational capacity

3. Habitat Restored: Encourage restoration of critical ecosystems in support of endangered and

rare species (e.g., Antigua and Barbuda Racer Snake)

4. Support of PAs Obtained: Build social capital among communities, government agencies, and

other stakeholder sectors working on solutions and incentives for conservation of PAs to inspire

political will for natural resource protection

5. Climate Change Resilience Strengthened: Work with diverse partners to develop and enable

implementation of mechanisms for responding to climate change, including the protection and

maintenance of wetlands and coastal watersheds that may serve as carbon sinks.

Internal Strategies

6. Long-Term Investments Secured: Internally, the MEPA Trust will search for funding

opportunities to increase MEPA Trust funds that can be used to support grantees and in support

of its vision and mission.

7. Partnerships Developed: Internally and in support of its operations, the MEPA Trust will work to

develop and strengthen their partnership with the DoE, as well as other key government

agencies (e.g., Department of Fisheries).

Measures of Performance To assess progress toward its three goals, the MEPA Trust will track its progress through measures of

performance, which it can use to identify achievements, challenges, and potential failures or

shortcomings of the MEPA Trust and the supported projects during formal or informal evaluations.

Some example measures of performance include:

• $ of money raised and funds granted


• # of PAs with effective management, as demonstrated through achievement of five key

elements of management effectiveness3

• # of decision-makers incorporating fund-supported projects/research into policy and

management

• # of PAs with mitigation and adaptation approaches being designed and implemented

• # of PA staff with increased capacity for management (e.g., enforcement, biodiversity and PA

monitoring, climate change planning)

• # of acres of land and sea in PA ecosystems restored to improve resiliency and reduce

ecosystem threats

• # of projects implementing activities designed to reduce land-based pollution

• # of sites within priority PAs with increased abundance of key species

• # of communities engaged in collaborative projects in support of ecosystem and PA protection

• # of PAs with increased rates of compliance with regulations and successful prosecutions against

perpetrators of illegal activities

• # of government champions who have participated in site visits to priority PAs

• % of wetlands and watersheds with carbon sequestration potential protected

• Tonnes of C02 sequestered by PAs

Three-Year Logic Model

The Logic Model (Tables 1 - 3) describes more specifically how the MEPA Trust intends to achieve its

goals. In the Logic Model, the implementation of activities by MEPA Trust-funded grantees and broader

strategies spearheaded by the MEPA Trust will lead to the realization of three-to five-year outcomes and

two-to-three-year mid-term objectives (see Appendix A for definitions of strategic planning definitions).

The Logic Model will focus initially on two PAs: Codrington Lagoon in Barbuda and NEMMA in Antigua

(see the Criteria for Eligibility of Protected Areas section).

3The five key elements of PA effectiveness include: a legal framework, strong management plan, operational capacity, social

capital, and long-term financial sustainability (Blue Earth Consultants, LLC, 2013)


Table 1. Goal 1 Logic Model

Goal 1: Protect and Enhance Ecosystems

Outcomes Objectives Strategies and Activities

Increased acres

restored of key

ecosystems and

habitat in and

surrounding

Codrington

Lagoon and

NEMMA that

have been

negatively

impacted

• Identify key sites for ecosystem

restoration activities

• Reduce habitat loss due to

development projects through

implementation of restoration and

mitigation projects

• Encourage and help partners promote

sustainable and environmentally-

friendly development practices in new

and existing coastal developments

• Enhance carbon sequestration by

protecting wetlands and watersheds

that can serve as carbon sinks

Strategies:

1) Capacity for PA governance and management increased

2) Long-term investment secured

3) Habitat restored

4) Support of PAs obtained

Example Grantee Activities:

• Support monitoring and mitigation of pollution from hotels, golf courses, and other coastal

developments

• Support projects that have ecosystem restoration and/pollution control components

• Support researchers and managers implementing restoration activities focused on rare and

endangered species

• Explore the feasibility of mitigation projects

• Support research to prioritize habitats based on carbon sequestration potential

Increased

capacity for

management of

Codrington

Lagoon and

NEMMA

• Coordinate collaborative capacity

building activities (e.g., trainings and

workshops with local stakeholders) on

specific topics (e.g., climate change

adaptation, enforcement)

• Incorporate climate change adaptation

and mitigation considerations, such as

the carbon sequestration potential of

wetlands and coastal watersheds, into

existing and new PA plans

Strategies:



3) Climate change resilience strengthened

4) Partnerships developed


• Issue a special request for proposal (RFP) focused on capacity building

• Support grants that will help convene individuals and organizations through trainings and

workshops

• Support projects that incorporate climate change adaptation into Codrington Lagoon and

NEMMA management plans

• Support joint training of groups involved in PA management with partners (e.g., EcoAdapt,

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) on climate change adaptation and

carbon sequestration


Goal 1: Protect and Enhance Ecosystems


Maintained and

increased

biodiversity in

and around

Codrington

Lagoon and

NEMMA

• Identify, protect, and increase species

abundance in areas of high biodiversity

• Decrease pollution and litter to help

maintain biodiversity and biological

integrity of sites and enable sites to

respond to climate change

• Conduct scientific studies on threats to

biodiversity (e.g., impacts on fish

populations from increased abundance

of jellyfish, climate change impacts)

Strategies:






• Support projects that provide increased support for field officers (e.g., biodiversity

monitoring, restoration techniques) working in PAs to help maintain biodiversity

• Promote projects that include strategies to decrease pollution and litter and/or restoration

components to maintain biodiversity and improve ecosystem health

• Support projects that study natural and anthropogenic threats to biodiversity (e.g., jellyfish

abundance and help identify biodiversity hotspots

Increased and

mainstreamed

use of

ecosystem

information into

policy to build

partnerships

and increased

funds for

ecosystem

protection

• Secure government support for

ecosystem protection and obtain

increased matching government funds

to support projects

• Use information related to ecosystem

threats to strengthen and focus

enforcement activities and prosecution

of illegal actions

Strategies





Example Grantee Activities

• Support projects that help share information with policy-makers and result in the

translation of scientific information into policy recommendation to increase ecosystem

protection

• Support trainings of PA managers and enforcement officers on ecosystem threats and

priority illegal actions to target during enforcement to enhance ecosystem protection



Goal 2: Strengthen the Governance and Management Effectiveness of PAs


Increased

sustainable

funding

available to

support onsite

management

operations and

implementation

of Codrington

Lagoon and

NEMMA

• Provide funding to ensure that PA

operations needs and budgets are

met, in coordination with government

and other funders

• Increase capacity of PA managers to

implement management priorities

outlined in PA management plans

• Raise funds in support of PA

management and management plan

implementation

• Develop a partnership agreement

with the Department of Fisheries

• Promote Codrington Lagoon and

NEMMA as models of effective

management that can be used as

examples for other PAs

Strategies:


2) Long-term investments secured


Example Activities:

• Support development and updating of management and sustainable financing strategies and

plans for PAs

• Identify other funding organizations and private businesses (e.g., ecotourism businesses) to

partner with and to help support projects on PA management

• Coordinate in-country campaigns to raise funds to support PA management

• Support grantee projects to increase public financing of PAs

• Promote collaborative activities in support of onsite management (e.g., citizen science,

stakeholder workshops on specific topics, collaborative enforcement, partnership with the

Department of Fisheries on specific management actions)

• Support projects targeted toward increasing management effectiveness (e.g., rapid

assessment of management effectiveness for priority PAs; PA management costing study)

Increased

enforcement

capacity (e.g.,

physical

infrastructure,

knowledge) for

Codrington

Lagoon and

NEMMA

• Create and support positions for

onsite wardens

• Build capacity for PA managers to

enforce regulations, as well as

educate stakeholders and resources

users regarding PA regulations

• Increase compliance with PA

regulations

• Increase knowledge and awareness of

PA rules and regulations among

stakeholders and users

Strategies:




Example Activities:

• Increase compliance through supporting projects to raise awareness of PA regulations and

increasing legal capacity for prosecutions

• Support projects to optimize and implement technological tools and solutions for

enforcement (e.g., radar technology)

• Support enforcement equipment costs (e.g., fuel, boats, other enforcement infrastructure)

• Support PA manager and enforcement officer trainings on enforcement methods (e.g.,

enforcer role, cultural considerations, how to be effective)

• Develop partnerships with key partners working on enforcement (e.g., Department of

Fisheries, the Coast Guard, local fishermen)



Goal 3: Increased human and financial resources for PAs from governments and communities


Increased political

support for PAs and

conservation

projects

• Identify and cultivate champions in

government who will support PAs and

promote a conservation ethic

• Expand collaboration between PA

authorities and other related

ministries/government agencies

• Create opportunities for coordination

between stakeholders and the government

(e.g., development of co-management

strategies for PAs, implementation of

collaborative climate change mitigation

projects)

Strategies:




Example Activities:

• Build relationships with key leadership in government ministries and agencies

• Support projects that engage and encourage collaboration and information

sharing among individuals across all levels of PA management and

implementation

• Support site visits of government champions to Codrington Lagoon and NEMMA

Strengthened

support of

communities and

other stakeholders

for management of

Codrington Lagoon

and NEMMA

• Increase opportunities for stakeholders to

participate in PA management (e.g.,

establishment of co-management

arrangements, participatory climate change

planning)

• Improve communication between

stakeholders and PA managers

Strategies:





Example Activities:

• Support projects focused on convening meetings to encourage stakeholder

participation in PA management decisions and to design mechanisms for actively

involving stakeholders in PA management activities

• Support citizen science and collaborative research projects that engage local

communities (e.g., monitoring, climate change adaptation planning)

• Coordinate and support outreach to key stakeholders on PAs and PA

management


Funding Allocation Guidelines

To determine how it will allocate funding toward various grantees and projects, there are a number of

factors for the MEPA Trust to consider, including its priorities for allocating funding, how programmatic

funding will be distributed among different goals and activities, potential criteria to use to determine

how to select which PAs to prioritize and projects to fund, proposed eligible and non-eligible recipients

and projects, and potential types of projects and grants to fund. This section describes how the MEPA

Trust will consider these factors and allocate funding to selected grantees.

Priorities for Allocating Funding

Drawing from the priorities identified through the online surveys and interviews, and building off of the

Vision, Mission, and Logic Model, the MEPA Trust’s priorities for allocating funding will correspond

directly to the Logic Model (Tables 1-3). All projects funded will relate to specific outcomes and

objectives highlighted in the Logic Model. The MEPA Trust will revisit the Logic Model annually, and may

shift goals, outcomes, and objectives.

Distribution of Program Funding

To allow for the funding of a variety of grant topics that address the various goals and outcomes

described in the Logic Model, the MEPA Trust will distribute its programmatic funding as follows:

PA Management: This funding will be split among the identified program goals and decided

upon each year by the MEPA Trust Board (see the Grant-Making Goals section).

Innovation and Opportunity Allocation: This funding will be used to support innovative projects

and programs (e.g., ground-breaking research, policy analysis and development, new strategies

for education and outreach, and/or pilot projects) in support of the vision, mission, goals, and

strategies of the MEPA Trust.

Criteria for Eligibility of Protected Areas

Guidelines and criteria for the ranking of sites proposed by grants are important tools for the MEPA

Trust to use in its allocation decision-making. The MEPA Trust will initially fund projects that are focused

on the NEMMA and the Codrington Lagoon National Park. These sites were selected based on

stakeholder engagement, discussions of the MEPA Trust Board, and consideration of the criteria listed

below. In addition, the NEMMA and Codrington Lagoon contain wetlands and mangroves that may serve

as carbon sinks, and protecting these PAs aligns with Antigua and Barbuda’s INDC to the UNFCCC

(Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2015b). The following criteria may be further refined or expanded

as funds become available, and as more funding becomes available, the MEPA Trust will also use these

criteria to identify other PAs to focus on:

Presence of endangered and rare species: Consider the importance of endangered and rare

species to Antigua and Barbuda’s national heritage.

Current ecological condition of the PA: Consider the ecological status of sites and weigh the

benefits of protecting healthy ecosystems and/or enabling degraded ecosystems to recover.


Amount of available funds for PA management: Consider financial resources that can be

leveraged for management of PAs.

Urgency for taking actions in the PA: Consider critical threats and pressures facing PAs.

Level of infrastructure and management capacity: Consider existing infrastructure (e.g., boats,

scientific instruments, etc.) and management capacity at the PA.

Eligible Recipients

A variety of different types of recipients in Antigua and Barbuda will be eligible to receive grants from

the MEPA Trust. All eligible organizations or individuals must be legally-registered entities in Antigua

and Barbuda and have the necessary organizational infrastructure (e.g., bank account, leadership,

necessary staff capacity) to support implementation of the project.

Potential recipient types include:

Government ministries of the government of Antigua and Barbuda responsible marine and/or

terrestrial PA regulation and environment regulation. grants will not support overhead for

government agencies, but will support travel or other project costs. Government agencies must

have an account that is separate from the consolidated account of the central government to

receive MEPA Trust funds.

Local or regional (Caribbean) NGOs established, legally-registered and existing in Antigua and

Barbuda; grants will support up to 15% overhead for NGOs.

Community groups with direct impact on PAs and ecosystems (e.g., fisherfolk associations,

youth groups, church groups); grants will support up to 15% overhead for community groups.

Local academic institutions/researchers conducting activities relevant to the vision, mission,

goals, and strategies of the MEPA Trust; grants will support up to 15% overhead for academic

institutions and researchers.

Private businesses from relevant industries involved in PA clean-up, protection, conservation,

and/or monitoring. Private business must provide some matching funds; grants will not support

overhead for business; and the MEPA Trust will review whether or not businesses may generate

a profit through project activities. The MEPA Trust may consider creating a revolving fund to

fund private sector activities within the park.

Non-Eligible Projects

In accordance with the MEPA Trust’ draft Operations Manual, funds will not be directly or indirectly

used for (MEPA Trust 2016):

Projects that conflict with existing government policies and stated conservation objectives

Projects related to the mining of sand

Operating or administrative costs of ministries, departments or agencies of the Government of

Antigua and Barbuda or the government of any other country

Salaries for executive officers and core staff of NGOs, except for such salaries related to services

performed by such persons on behalf of the MEPA Trust or such salaries related to positions


established specifically for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the grant and the general

purpose of the MEPA Trust

Activities relating to the extraction or depletion of non-renewable natural resources (including

forests, trees, minerals and oil/gas)

The purchase of land, the resettlement of people or the removal or alteration of any physical

cultural property under any circumstances

Any other use not consistent with the general purpose of the MEPA Trust

Projects and Grant Types the MEPA Trust Will Support

The MEPA Trust will support single grants lasting no more than two years, ranging from $10,000 -

$350,000 USD. Grants will be within this range, but the amount specified in each call for proposals will

depend on the amount of funding that the Trust has available and the risk that the Trust is willing to

take with each investment. Depending on project outcomes, grantees may be able to apply for and

receive more funding following the completion of the first grant.

The Logic Model describes potential types of grantee activities that the MEPA Trust may consider

funding relating to its goal, outcomes, and objectives (see the Three-Year Logic Model section). To

summarize, these types of activities include:

PA Operations: Recurrent management and operational costs of PAs and biodiversity

conservation programs (e.g., infrastructure for enforcement; development and strengthening of

PA management plan)

Education and awareness: Activities that promote building community awareness about

biodiversity and conservation (e.g., climate change awareness, natural resource and biodiversity

regulations)

Basic equipment/tools: Government investments in equipment, infrastructure, maintenance,

travel, and supplies

Technical support/capacity building: Institutional strengthening and capacity-building trainings

for PA staff on specific topics (e.g., climate change adaptation, enforcement mechanisms and

technology)

Research: Projects designed to support conservation-oriented research (e.g., collection of

baseline data on pollution and litter impacts, monitoring of restoration sites, biodiversity

monitoring)

Policy uptake: Projects designed to help produce information that can be shared with policy-

makers to strengthen the legal and policy framework for conservation of ecosystems and PAs

(e.g., conducting outreach workshops on specific topics with government agencies, identifying

government champions to support conservation, site visits of government champions to PAs to

learn about PA management and ecosystem threats)

Partnership development: Projects designed to support developing partnerships in support of

strengthened PA management with key entities (e.g., government ministries/agencies,

community groups, private sector partners)


The Grant Making Process

This section describes the MEPA Trust’s grant-making process and integrates grant-making best

practices for CTFs (e.g., Conservation Finance Alliance [CFA] 2013,4 Parker 2014). The MEPA Trust will

use this grant-making process to guide their grant-making activities, and may adapt this process as

needed as the fund matures. The grant-making process is separated into six sequential steps, and one

cross-cutting step (Figure 5): 1) Grant-Making Strategy; 2) Proposal Solicitation and Outreach; 3)

Reviewing and Awarding Grants; 4) The MEPA Trust and Grantee Implementation; 5) Grantee Close; 6)

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning; and the cross-cutting step of Communications.

Figure 5. The Grant-Making Process

Step 1: Grant-Making Strategy

The MEPA Trust’s grant-making strategy lays the groundwork for its grant-making activities and

determines what the MEPA Trust will fund each year. The grant-making strategy will be revised annually

based on findings and lessons learned throughout the process and identified through MEL to adapt to

the changing landscape of threats, needs, and priorities for Antigua and Barbuda. Developing the

strategy will consist of many components, including:

Assess annual funds available: The MEPA Trust will begin by assessing the annual funds

available for grant-making to determine the scope of grant-making activities for the year.

4 The Practice Standard for Conservation Trust Funds and other CFA documents can be found here. (Date accessed: 9/30/16).

http://www.conservationfinance.org/library.php?categoria=9


Develop and refine RFP: Based on identified Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes (see the Three-

Year Logic Model section), the MEPA Trust will develop and refine the annual (or bi-annual,

depending on funds available) RFPs that it will use to solicit grantee applications (Appendix K).

Develop and refine grant-scoring criteria: The MEPA Trust will develop and refine grant-scoring

criteria that it will use to select grantees (see Appendix J and the Criteria for Scoring Grants

subsection below).

Determine annual funding allocations: Depending upon available funds and priorities, the

MEPA Trust will determine annual funding allocations for different programmatic areas (see the

Distribution of Program Funding section).

Form a technical advisory committee (TAC): The MEPA Trust will form an external committee to

review grant applications (see the Technical Advisory Committee subsection).

Criteria for Scoring Grants The MEPA Trust will develop and refine grant-scoring criteria based on the MEPA Trust’s goals,

outcomes, and strategies (see the Three-Year Logic Model section). Proposals will be scored based on

their ability to achieve the Logic Model. Initial goal criteria may include the following:

Goal 1 Criteria – Protect and enhance ecosystems: proposal will result in increased acreage of

restored habitat, protection of wetlands and watersheds with carbon sequestration potential,

reduced disaster risk, and/or strengthened resilience of ecosystems against climate change and

unsustainable development

Goal 2 Criteria – Strengthen the governance and management effectiveness of PAs: proposal

will result in increased compliance with PA regulations and improved outreach and education on

effective PA governance and management

Goal 3 Criteria - Increased human and financial resources for PAs from governments and

communities: proposal will result in increased social capital and political will for PAs and

increased sustainable funding to support PA management, establishment, and implementation

In addition, the MEPA Trust will use process criteria to guide grant-making. Initial process criteria may

include the following:

Process Criteria 1 - Institutional capacity and track record of grantee: past achievements of

grantee, strong organization leader, previous successful projects

Process Criteria 2 - Measurable outcomes and impact: grant includes a well-articulated strategy

and methods to measure/evaluate grant outcomes

Process Criteria 3 - Realistic budget and project timeline: grant includes a realistic budget and

timeline for proposed project outcomes

Process Criteria 4- Sustainability: grantee demonstrates organizational durability and an ability

to implement activities for many years

Technical Advisory Committee As a key component of the grant-making strategy, the MEPA Trust will form a TAC to review the grant

applications. The TAC could include a balanced representation of experts from the DoE, the Barbuda

Council, the Coast Guard, the Department of Fisheries, the finance sector, and other areas that align

with the knowledge areas represented by the MEPA Trust’s goals. The MEPA Trust will invite individuals

to volunteer as members of the TAC. The TAC’s role in grant-making decisions will be purely advisory


and the MEPA Trust Board will make all final decisions regarding grant-making. In the event of a conflict

of interest, members must declare the conflict and recuse themselves from making decisions. Members

of the TAC must declare a conflict of interest if they are a member of an organization that has applied

for a grant or hired as a paid consultant on project applying for funding (Appendix I).

Step 2: Proposal Solicitation and Outreach

Following the development of the grant-making strategy, the MEPA Trust will conduct outreach to

potential grantees and solicit proposals. The MEPA Trust will release the RFP through its official website

and, where possible, distribute to donors for broader dissemination. The MEPA Trust will also conduct

outreach by making announcements (e.g., church announcements, public service announcements),

posting on its Facebook page, distributing flyers, and hosting meetings to inform potential grantees

about the application process. Throughout the proposal solicitation and outreach process, the MEPA

Trust will serve as a resource for potential grantees by responding to grantee questions about the RFP

and the grant-application process.

Concept Notes The MEPA Trust will accept two-page Concept Notes (Appendix G) from potential grantees responding

to the RFP for three months. The Concept Notes will include the following information:

Target PA

Basic overview of the project (including whether the project is a new or an ongoing project)

Project rationale (including how the project will help build resilience to climate change)

Key goals, outcomes, strategies, measures, and other elements of the logic model the project

will address

Project budget and timeline

Project partners

Co-financers and/or sources of matching funds

Past performance of applicant

Step 3: Reviewing and Awarding Grants

After conducting outreach to potential grantees and soliciting proposals, the MEPA Trust and the TAC

will work together to review proposals and award grants, taking a two-step approach to reviewing grant

applications.

Review of Concept Notes After the Concept Notes are received, the MEPA Trust Coordinator will conduct an initial screening to

determine if the proposals meet the general guidelines of the MEPA Trust. The Coordinator will select

proposals to send to the TAC for a full review, indicate to the Board which proposals have not been

forwarded to the TAC so that the Board can review and verify the selections, and communicate in a

collaborative and supportive manner with applicants whose Concept Notes have been rejected. The TAC

will review the Concept Notes and make recommendations to the Board Review Committee about

which applicants to invite to submit full proposals. The Board Review Committee will review these

recommendations and finalize selections. Submission and review of Concept Notes will only take place

once or twice per year, depending on available funding.


Review of Full Proposals and Awarding Grants The Board Review Committee will invite applicants to submit full proposals, which the TAC and Board

Review Committee will review using a similar process to the review of Concept Notes. The Coordinator

and the Board Review Committee will create dossiers on each grantee including all relevant grantee

information, conduct the initial screening of proposals, and send the selected proposals to the TAC for

full review. The TAC will score grants using the criteria outlined above (see Criteria for Scoring Grants

section of this report) and prepare summaries of each grant proposal to send back to the Board Review

Committee. The TAC will submit recommendations to the Board Review Committee for which proposals

to select for funding, and the Board Review Committee will review these recommendations. As part of

the proposal review, the Board Review Committee will conduct due diligence on grantees, including

optional interviews with top ranked applicants, and make final recommendations for selection of

grantees. The full MEPA Trust Board will then meet in person, review the applications and

recommendations of the TAC and the Board Review Committee, and vote to select the final grant

winners. The MEPA Trust will publicly share the grant award winners (e.g., through the website, social

media, etc.).

Step 4: MEPA Trust and Grantee Implementation

After awarding grants, the MEPA Trust will work closely with selected grantees to execute the grant

agreement. The MEPA Trust has a two-year services agreement with the DoE to provide in-kind support

for grant implementation. The MEPA Trust chose this services agreement as the most cost-effective way

to administer the operations of the MEPA Trust at this time, and will monitor the effectiveness of this

arrangement as it develops. The MEPA Trust will document the in-kind support provided by the DoE in

its reports to the CBF. In addition to the agreement with DoE, implementation includes several

components, such as:

Execution of the grant agreement: The MEPA Trust and grantees will enter into a legally-binding

grant agreement (Appendix H), which will guide the implementation of the grant.

Fund disbursement: Prior to disbursing funds, the MEPA Trust will outline any restrictions in

place for the disbursement of funds and the timing of disbursement, including that the MEPA

Trust will disburse funds in installments to ensure grantee accountability. As outlined in the

services agreement, the DoE will manage the MEPA Trust’s accounts and a representative of the

DoE will disburse the funds. The DoE will also audit the MEPA Trust’s grant-making.

Administrative and field supervision of grantees: The DoE will also provide administrative

support to the MEPA Trust as part of the services agreement. The MEPA Trust Coordinator will

communicate with grantees and Board members to supervise the grant implementation. The

MEPA Trust will conduct at least one site visit during the implementation of each grant.

Annual work plans: The MEPA Trust will develop an operational work plan describing annual

activities, granting timelines, MEL procedures, and other items on an annual basis, all of which

the Board will approve. The work plan will determine a timeline for the grant cycle process and

indicate each board member’s role with regards to implementation.

Amendments: The MEPA Trust will adhere to the voting process outlined in the by-laws to

change the grant-making manual; the MEPA Trust will also consider adding a process to amend

grant agreements.


Conflicts of interest: MEPA Trust members directly involved in, friends with, family members of,

or who have/has had a working relationship with grant applicants may have a conflict of interest

in the grant-selection process. In event of conflict, members will provide written notification and

recuse themselves from any involvement in review and administration of grant.5

Conflict between the MEPA Trust and grantees: In the event of a conflict between the MEPA

Trust and a grantee, the MEPA Trust Coordinator will first assess the situation and, if possible,

facilitate a resolution. If needed, the conflict will be escalated to the Board, and the Board could

invite a neutral third party to hear both cases. The Board can select an ombudsperson or Board

member who can receive complaints with no retaliation. The Board may ask for an external

investigation or mediation to resolve the issue, if needed.

Step 5: Grantee Close

At the conclusion of the grant, grantees will provide the MEPA Trust with a final grant report (Appendix

H). The grantee will also provide the MEPA Trust with any project products and a documentation of

lessons learned through the grant process. The MEPA Trust may share any project products and lessons

learned with the public, such as by posting on the website and/or highlighting in the annual report. The

documentation and sharing of lessons learned at the conclusion of the grant cycle will help to promote

transparency and the dissemination of project outcomes. Grantee reporting is discussed in more detail

the following section.

Step 6: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

The CFA emphasizes the importance of MEL as a best practice for CTFs because it allows for, “ensuring

compliance, reviewing progress, and making informed decisions based upon well written planning,

budgeting and financial reports from the CTF management and staff” (CFA 2013). A robust MEL process

is an essential step of the MEPA Trust’s grant-making process because it will allow the MEPA Trust to

evaluate the impact of its grants, report results and impacts to target audiences, and provide tools for

decision-making for adaptive management of projects and for amending the grant-making strategy. In

addition, MEL will promote transparency by generating lessons learned that can be publicly shared

(Parker 2014), which is also an important value for CTFs to adhere to. This section describes the MEL

process that the MEPA Trust will use to monitor and evaluate its programs in relation to its purpose,

strategic direction, and national and international conservation indicators, targets, and strategies (CFA

2013).

Grantee Reporting and Monitoring As part of the MEL process, the MEPA Trust will monitor grantee progress. The MEPA Trust and grantees

will agree upon measures of performance (see Measures of Performance subsection) to monitor grant

progress and outline these in the grant agreement, prior to grant implementation. In addition, the MEPA

Trust will conduct at least one monitoring site visit to observe site conditions and activities. The MEPA

Trust will develop and provide clear reporting guidelines, timelines, and templates for grantees to

5 The MEPA Trust will also adhere to the conflict of interest policies described in Section 9 of the Operations Manual (MEPA Trust 2016), and in the Conflicts of Interest section in the Department of the Environment Manual (Government of Antigua and Barbuda 2016).


support grantee reporting. Templates that MEPA Trust will provide to grantees to guide reporting may

include the following reports:

Interim project financial and progress reports: The MEPA Trust will request that grantees

submit an initial report along with receipts and a financial report after the first disbursement of

grant funds. Grantees will be required to submit these items prior to receiving the second

installment of grant funds.

Financial statements: The MEPA Trust will require grantees to provide annual financial

statements documenting the disbursement and use of grant funds. The MEPA Trust recognizes

that grantees may not have the capacity to produce financial reports, so the MEPA Trust may

work to secure in-kind accounting services from accounting firms to support grantees with their

financial reporting. Grantees will benefit from the opportunity to work with accountants to

generate financial reports and may use these reports for their own purposes in addition to

submitting them to the MEPA Trust.

End of project report: The MEPA Trust will require grantees to submit a final report, the content

of which will vary based on the project, at the close of the project to receive their final payment.

MEL Process to Monitor MEPA Trust Progress In addition to thorough monitoring of grantees, the MEPA Trust will implement a clear MEL process to

monitor the portfolio’s progress toward the overall vision, mission, and goals of the MEPA Trust. This

MEL process will provide a mechanism to monitor progress and contributions to national and

international conservation agendas and is a common best practice of CTFs (CFA 2013). The MEPA Trust’s

multi-year MEL process will be participatory and may include the following steps:

Year 0 - Development of and agreement upon monitoring tools: The MEPA Trust will first

develop and agree upon measures of performance, monitoring templates and timelines, and set

baselines against which to monitor progress.

Year 2 - Annual Status Check: Beginning in the second year and implemented every year

thereafter, the MEPA Trust will conduct an annual status check of its progress. The annual status

check will include an assessment of the MEPA Trust’s progress, a review of grant-making

procedures, refinement of grant-scoring criteria, determination of goals and outcomes to focus

on in the annual RFP, and other assessments to inform the development annual grant-making

strategy.

Year 3 - Mid-Term Evaluation: During year three, the MEPA Trust will conduct a participatory

mid-term evaluation to evaluate progress towards the strategy, goals, and outcomes set out in

this plan. The mid-term evaluation could also include a rapid review of grantee progress and

achievements of a select set of grantees, and will engage grantees and partners throughout the

process. The MEPA Trust will consider bringing in an outside consultant to conduct the mid-term

evaluation.

Year 6 - Full External Evaluation: After six years, the MEPA Trust will participate in a full

external, participatory evaluation of the programmatic and operational elements of the MEPA

Trust, conducted by an external consultant, to assess progress toward achievement of its vision,

mission, and goals and inform shifts in and revision to the grant-making strategy. The full

evaluation, like the mid-term evaluation, will be participatory, engage grantees and partners,

and use the MEPA Trust’s progress to empower the community.


Reporting Structures After the first year of grant-making, the MEPA Trust will develop an annual report6 highlighting progress

towards and achievement of outcomes. Annual reports may also share the financials of the trust. The

reporting will help to promote transparency (Parker 2014), and therefore the MEPA Trust will make

annual reports and any additional information publicly available (e.g., through the website), as is

appropriate.

In addition to independent reporting, the MEPA Trust will fulfill all of the initial and annual reporting

requirements of the CBF that are specified in the Partnership Agreement between the MEPA Trust and

the CBF as well as other donors and regulatory authorities, as appropriate.7These items include the

following:

Written request for payment: The MEPA Trust must submit written requests for payment to the

CBF.

Written statement confirming the appointment of an Executive Director: The MEPA Trust must

notify the CBF that it has appointed an Executive Director in accordance with the Constitutional

Instruments.

Confirmation of matching requirement: Following the second anniversary of the Partnership

Agreement, the MEPA Trust’s Executive Director must submit a written acknowledgement that

the MEPA Trust has deposited sufficient funds to meet the matching requirement.

Workplan: The MEPA Trust will submit to the CBF the annual workplan that has been approved

by the Board, which may include the MEPA Trust’s procurement plan and the proposed and

currently implemented Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements.

Financial statements: The MEPA Trust will provide pro forma financial statements and technical

reports and regularly update and develop its Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements. The

MEPA Trust will appoint an independent auditor to audit its financial accounts and prepare a

report to submit to the CBF on an annual basis.

Reports, statements, terms of references, lists, and other documents: The MEPA Trust will

provide these materials and as much information as is necessary for the CBF to review the MEPA

Trust’s performance.

Meetings: The MEPA Trust will facilitate remote or in-country payment monitoring meetings

with the CBF.

Cross-cutting Step: Communications

Communications are an important element in each step of the grant-cycle, and the MEPA Trust will

prioritize transparent and efficient internal and external communications throughout the grant-cycle.

Important communications at each step of the grant cycle include the following:

Step One: Grant-Making Strategy – When establishing the TAC, the MEPA Trust will

communicate with potential committee members about the role and responsibilities of the TAC,

the expected time commitment, and the conflict of interest policy.

6 For an example of an annual report from Fondo Mexicano, please see here. (Date accessed: 9/30/16). 7 The Partnership Agreement template for NCTFs can be found here. (Date accessed: 9/30/16).

https://fmcn.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/FMCN-2013-Annual-Report.pdf

http://www.caribbeanbiodiversityfund.org/images/pdf/Active_48382145_12_Vertical%20Agreement%20-%202015%20AGREED%20%20TEMPLATE%20(2).pdf


Step Two: Proposal Solicitation and Outreach – The MEPA Trust will conduct thorough outreach

to potential grantees using a variety of forms of communication (e.g., website and social media

posts, flyers, hard-copy letters, announcements, and meetings) to encourage grantees to apply

for funds and ensure grantees are aware of the MEPA Trust and its role. The MEPA Trust will

communicate with and provide support to potential grantees throughout the applications

process to build the capacity of grantees to apply for grant funding. This will include providing

constructive feedback to grantees whose Concept Notes or full proposals are not selected for

funding.

Step Three: Reviewing and Awarding Grants – During the grant review and selection process,

the MEPA Trust Board, the Board Review Committee, the MEPA Trust Coordinator, and the

members of the TAC will communicate efficiently, transparently, and in alignment with the

process outlined in this framework and any other MEPA Trust guiding documents, to select

proposals and award grants. The Board, Review Committee, and TAC members will

communicate with each other via email and at in-person meetings, as appropriate. The MEPA

Trust will communicate externally the results of the grant review and selection process.

Step Four: MEPA Trust and Grantee Implementation – Throughout the duration of the grant

agreement, the MEPA Trust will actively communicate with grantees to support effective

implementation of the grant, fulfill monitoring requirements, and ensure accountability. The

MEPA Trust will also communicate with partners at the DoE to ensure effective implementation

of the two-year services agreement and the role of the partnership going forward. The MEPA

Trust will also communicate with other partner ministries/agencies (e.g., Department of

Fisheries), as appropriate.

Step Five: Grantee Close – At the close of each grant cycle, the MEPA Trust will share project

products and lessons learned with the public, as appropriate.

Step Six: Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning – During the MEL process, the MEPA Trust will

communicate with grantees to monitor progress and gather lessons learned. The MEPA Trust

will also communicate collaboratively and transparently with external partners and consultants

and engage grantees and communities during the mid-term and full review. Following the terms

of the Partnership Agreement and any other agreements, the MEPA Trust will fulfill all

communication and documentation required by the CBF.

Risks and Mitigation Strategies

A number of risk factors may affect the MEPA Trust’s efforts as it works to achieve its goals in the

coming years. These risks could inhibit the MEPA Trust from carrying out certain strategies or otherwise

diminish the impact of its work. Table 4 outlines some of these potential risks, as well as strategies that

the MEPA Trust could use to mitigate the risks.

Table 4. Risk Factors and Mitigation Strategies

Risks Mitigation Strategies

More proposals than available funding

Ensure transparent communications about available funding with grantees (e.g., other sources of funding they applied for) and partners (e.g., DoE)

Request additional funding from partners if needed


Stay informed about potential sources of funding

Secure more funds for grant-making

Change of government and/or ministries

Build relationships with people within and outside of government

Invite and engage opposition

Maintain a non-partisan stance

Failure of grantees to deliver Encourage and fund realistic projects

Monitor grantees during the grant cycle

Mentor grantees through the application and grant implementation processes

Release funds in stages Natural Disasters Support preparations for natural disasters

Develop contingency plans

Social and economic instability Develop contingency plans

Target groups not applying for funds

Develop an outreach strategy using hard copy letters and phone calls to supplement web outreach


References

The Caribbean Biodiversity Fund. “About the Caribbean Biodiversity Fund.” Caribbean Biodiversity Fund.

2015. Web. 25 Aug. 2016.

The Caribbean Biodiversity Fund. Articles of Association of the Caribbean Biodiversity Fund. Jun. 2015b.

Web. 30. Sept. 2016.

Caribsave. The Caribsave Climate Change Risk Atlas (CCCRA) Climate Change Risk Profile for Antigua and

Barbuda. Mar. 2012. Print.

Conservation Finance Alliance. Practice Standards for Conservation Trust Funds. Conservation Finance

Alliance. 2013. Print.

Drayton, N. and Devine, B., Tropical Ecosystem Consulting. Assessment and Mapping of Antigua and

Barbuda’s Ecosystem Resources and Promoting a System of Protected Areas for Antigua and

Barbuda: Antigua and Barbuda National Action Plan for Protected Areas (Final). Apr. 2010. Print.

Ecoengineering Caribbean Limited. Environmental and Socio-Economic Studies for OPAAL Demonstration

Sites Northeast Marine Management Area (NEMMA), Antigua Site Report. Eco Report No.

10/2007. 31 Jul. 2007. Print.

Government of Antigua and Barbuda. Antigua & Barbuda National Strategic Biodiversity Action Plan.

2014a. Print.

Government of Antigua and Barbuda. Environment Division. Antigua and Barbuda Fifth National Report

to the Convention on Biodiversity. 2014b. Print.

Government of Antigua and Barbuda. Environmental Protection and Management Act, 2014. 2015a.

Print.

Government of Antigua and Barbuda. Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC),

Communicated to the UNFCC on 15th October, 2015. 2015b. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.

Government of Antigua and Barbuda. Department of the Environment. Manual Processing of Grants

and Revolving Loans Relationship with the MEPA Trust. 2016. Print.

Jackson, I. Northeast Marine Management Area (NEMMA) 2007-2010 Management Plan. 26 Mar. 2008.

Print.

Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust. “About.” Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust. 2015a.

Web. 12 Sept. 2016.

Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust. By-Law No. 1 Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust Inc.

2015b. Print.

Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust. MEPA Trust Antigua and Barbuda Draft Operational Manual

2015 – 2018. 2016. Web. 8 Sept. 2016.

Parker, S. Opening up: Demystifying Funder Transparency. GrantCraft: New York, 2014. Print.


The World Bank. Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Grant from the Global Environment Facility

Trust Fund in the Amount of US$8.75 Million to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) for the Benefit of

Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the

Grenadines for a Sustainable Financing & Management of Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystem

Project. Rep. 58305-LAC. The World Bank. 12 July 2011. Print.


Appendices

Appendix A: Strategic Planning Definitions

Strategic Planning Terms During the MEPA Trust meeting, Blue Earth used the terms listed in Table 5 to discuss the MEPA Trust’s

strategic approach to grant-making.

Table 5. Definitions of Strategic Planning Terms

Term Definition

Vision A statement that communicates the optimal desired future state – the mental

picture – of what an organization wants to achieve. Provides guidance and

inspiration (stable 20-25 years).

Mission Succinct statement that articulates the purpose and primary goals of an organization (stable 10-15 years).

Goals Clearly defined, specific, actionable, and measurable conditions achieved through meeting specified objectives that are broad enough to capture long-term aspirations but tailored to be achievable with the program’s resources8 (stable 5-7 years).

Outcomes Achievements that can be measured in terms of changes in behavior, policy, ecosystem health9 (stable 5-7 years).

Strategies Methods or actions applied to achieve stated goals (stable 3-5 years).

Objectives Mid-point achievements linked to specific activities in the short term that contribute to achieving goals and outcomes (stable 2-3 years)

Activities What the organization does10 in the short term to achieve outcomes (stable 0-2 years)

Measures of

Performance

Quantitative and qualitative metrics that assess to what extent outcomes and objectives are being achieved.

8 Twersky, F. and K. Lindbolm. 2012. Evaluation Principles and Practices: An Internal Working Paper. The William and Flora Hewlett Packard Foundation. 9Ibid. 10 Brest, P. 2004. Update on the Hewlett Foundation’s Approach to Philanthropy: The Importance of Strategy. The William and Flora Hewlett Packard Foundation.


Appendix B: External Document for Grantees

See the file entitled, “MEPA_Trust_Grantmaking_Framework_external_document_100316”


Appendix C: Online Survey

Online Survey

Internal: About this Document

This document contains questions to be included in a brief structured, online survey that will be

distributed to 59experts and decision-makers in St. Lucia and Antigua and Barbuda to get buy-in and

insight from informants related to threats to ecosystem health and priorities for protected area funding.

Informants will include National Conservation Trust Fund (NCTF) Board members and staff, government

agency representatives, non-governmental organization (NGO) staff, and other key experts

knowledgeable about protected area management and financing in the countries. The survey will be

distributed using the online tool, Survey Monkey, and respondents will have approximately two weeks

to respond.

Survey Goal: To engage experts and decision-makers in the countries in determining key ecosystem

threats, protected area management needs and priorities, priority protected areas, and potential goals

and guidelines for the NCTFs.

Survey Objectives:

1. Identify key threats to ecosystem health and needs for effective protected area management in

St. Lucia and Antigua and Barbuda.

2. Identify priority protected areas in the countries to focus on.

3. Determine potential NCTF conservation goals and priorities.

4. Identify potential criteria and guidelines for NCTF funding allocations.

Survey Introduction

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. This survey should take no more than 20-30

minutes of your time.

Background

This survey is part of a project of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the World Bank on sustainable

financing of Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystems. This project aims to address threats to marine and

coastal resources and protected areas management challenges in the Eastern Caribbean. As part of this

project, TNC and the World Bank have hired Blue Earth Consultants, LLC (Blue Earth) to assess the key

threats to ecosystem health and management priorities in two Eastern Caribbean countries: Antigua and

Barbuda and St. Lucia. Blue Earth will also develop recommendations for grant-making that will occur

through National Conservation Trust Funds (NCTFs) in these countries, which will provide funding to

support protected area management.

Survey Purpose


The goal of this survey is to engage experts and decision-makers in Antigua and Barbuda in determining

key ecosystem threats, protected area management needs and priorities, priority protected areas, and

potential goals and guidelines for the Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust. Your responses will help

us determine priorities for protected area funding.

Confidentiality

Your responses to this survey will be a great help to TNC and the World Bank in understanding priorities

for protected areas in Antigua and Barbuda. We will summarize information you share today and will

not attribute any specific opinions or quotes. Information that would make it possible to identify you will

not be included in any report or publication that may result from this study. Allsurvey data will be stored

securely; we will not share identifiable data and information with anyone outside the Blue Earth project

team. Information revealing identities will not be provided to TNC or the World Bank.

Contacts and Questions

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, you are encouraged to contact Project

Director, Dr. Tegan Hoffmann ([email protected]) or Project Manager, Dr. Diana Pietri

([email protected]).

Again, thank you for completing the survey below. We greatly appreciate your time and effort.

Section 1: General Information

This section asks you to report general information about yourself and your involvement with protected

areas in Antigua and Barbuda.

1. Please write in the current organization that you work for, your current job title, the number of

years that you have worked with protected areas in your country, and the type of protected

area activities you have participated in. If you have retired, please write in your last

organization, former position, and approximate number of years worked on protected areas in

your country. Please write your response in the space provided below. (fill-in)

Section 2: Key Threats to Ecosystem Health and Protected Area Management

Internal Objectives:

Objective 1: Identify key threats to ecosystem health and needs for effective protected area

management in St. Lucia and Antigua and Barbuda.

Objective 2: Identify priority protected areas in the countries to focus on.

This section asks a series of questions related to priorities for protected areas and protected area

management.

1. What do you see as the TOP THREE threats and pressures to marine ecosystem health in your

country? Please select no more than three responses.

Climate change

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Invasive species

Pollution

Overfishing

Recreational use and tourism

Development and transformation of coastal areas

Poor management of marine ecosystems

Other (Please write-in)

Please BRIEFLY explain why you selected these three threats (response limited to 4 lines).

(fill-in)

2. On a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 = very unhealthy and 5 = very healthy) and based on you/your

organization’s understanding, how would you rank the overall ecological condition of the marine

ecosystems listed in the table below? Please select one response for each ecosystem below.

Ecosystem

Rating

1 – Very Unhealthy

2 – Unhealthy

3 – Moderately Unhealthy

4 – Healthy 5 – Very Healthy

I don’t know

Coral reefs

Seagrass beds

Mangroves

Wetlands

Other (write-in)

Please BRIEFLY explain the rating you selected above (response limited to 4 lines). (fill-in)

3. On average, on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 = very ineffective and 5 = very effective), how would

you rate the current management effectiveness of protected areas in your country?

Management effectiveness includes the legal and policy framework supporting site

management; whether or not a site has a strong management plan; the operational capacity of

site managers (i.e., for enforcement, outreach and education, and monitoring); social capital

(i.e., trust, support, and engagement) of stakeholders related to the protected area; and the

long-term financial sustainability of the protected area. Please select one response below.

1 – Very ineffective

2 – Ineffective

3 – Moderately effective

4 – Effective

5 – Very effective


I don’t know


4. What do you see as the main strengths of protected area management in your country? Please

select up to THREE responses from the list provided below.

Legal and policy framework supporting site management

Strong management plan for protected areas

Enforcement of protected areas

Monitoring, evaluation, and scientific research surrounding protected areas

Education and outreach regarding protected area management

Stakeholder support for and engagement in protected area management

Sustainable financing to support protected area management

Other (write-in)


5. What do you see as the TOP THREE needs for effective protected area management in your

country? Please select no more than three responses below.

A strong policy and legal framework to support management

Developing a strong management plan

Building capacity (staffing, knowledge, etc.) to support strong enforcement of protected

areas

Building capacity (staffing, knowledge, etc.) for ongoing monitoring of protected areas

Building capacity (staffing, knowledge, etc.) to coordinate outreach and education

related to protected areas

Fostering trust, support, and engagement of stakeholders to be aware of and participate

in protected area management

Sustainable funding to support protected area management

Other: Please write-in (fill-in)

Please BRIEFLY explain the responses you selected above (limited to four lines). (fill-in)

6. Do you have any additional thoughts you would like to share regarding ecosystem threats and

protected area management needs? Please write your response in the space provided below.

Section 3: National Conservation Trust Goals and Priorities

Objectives:

1. Objective 3: Determine potential NCTF conservation goals and priorities.

2. Objective 4: Identify potential criteria and guidelines for NCTF funding allocations.


This section asks a series of questions related to priorities for the MEPA Trust and how they should

prioritize funding for protected areas.

7. What priorities do you think that the MEPA Trust should concentrate on when allocating

funding? Please select all relevant responses below.

Climate change resilience

Managing invasive species

Controlling pollution

Limiting overfishing

Managing sustainable recreational use and tourism

Guiding coastal development

Supporting rare and endangered species

Enhancing ecological connectivity

Increasing capacity to manage marine ecosystems

Creating sustainable financing mechanisms to support protected area management

systems

Increasing education and awareness regarding protected areas

Strengthening leadership and executive management of protected areas

Improving protected area governance

Other: Please write-in (fill-in)

Please BRIEFLY explain your responses (limited to 4 lines). (fill-in)

8. Which of the following criteria (i.e., guidelines used to determine which protected areas should

receive funding) do you think would be useful to use when determining how protected area

funding should be allocated? Please select all relevant responses below.

Protected area size

Existing level of infrastructure and management capacity

Current ecological condition of protected area (e.g., highly degrade, healthy, or pristine)

Urgency for taking actions in the protected area

Ecosystem types presents

Presence of endangered and rare species

Presence of land-sea connections

Ecological connectivity

Amount of time protected

Amount of available funds to support protected area management

Social capital associated with site

Political will for site protection

Other: Please write-in. (fill-in)


Of the responses you selected above, which do you see as the TOP THREE MOST

IMPORTANT criteria for protected funding? Please write your responses below. (fill-in)

9. The table below lists the protected areas in Antigua and Barbuda. How would you prioritize

these protected areas in terms of needs for effective management to ensure protection again

threats to marine ecosystems? Please select one of the following ratings for each protected

area: High Priority; Medium Priority; Low Priority

Antigua and Barbuda Protected Areas to Include in Table

Cades Bay Marine Reserve

Codrington Lagoon National Park

Devil’s Bridge National Park

Diamond Reef and Salt Fish Tail Restricted Area

Fort Barrington National Park

Goat Island Flash Sanctuary

Goat Point Sanctuary

Greencastle National Park

Low Bay Sanctuary

Mt. Obama Proposed National Park

Nelson’s Dockyard National Park

Northeast Marine Management Area

Palaster Sanctuary

Two Foot Bay Sanctuary

Wallings Forest Reserve

Please BRIEFLY explain your ratings (limited to four lines). (fill-in)

10. What do you see as the most strategic interventions to improve the entire protected area system in Antigua and Barbuda? Please write your response in the space provided below. (fill-in)

11. Do you have any additional thoughts you would like to share regarding allocations of protected

area funding and priorities for funding? Please write your response in the space provided below.

Again, thank you for taking the time to complete this survey! We greatly appreciate your responses.


Appendix D: Interview Guide

Key Informant Interviews

This document contains questions to be included in a brief semi-structured interview that will be

conducted with two key informants in each country following the online survey. Interview informants

will include key individuals in each country (e.g., National Conservation Trust Fund [NCTF] board

members, government agency representatives, non-governmental organization [NGO] staff) who are

knowledgeable about protected area management and the NCTFs.

The Blue Earth interviewer will modify the interview instrument (e.g., by asking specific questions that

are relevant to each individual’s core expertise/experiences) as needed to accommodate each

informant’s knowledge. Text in italics indicates information that the interviewer will share with the

informant, while information in [brackets and bold] is a note for the interviewer and will not be

communicated to the informants.

Interview Goal: To validate and expand on online survey findings and explore in-depth key ecosystem

threats, protected area management needs and priorities, priority protected areas, and potential goals

and guidelines for the NCTFs.

Interview Objectives:

1. Discuss the preliminary findings of the online survey, including: key ecosystem threats and

protected area management needs; prioritized protected areas; NCTF conservation goals and

priorities; and criteria and guidelines for NCTF funding allocations.

2. Determine the rationale for key ecosystem threats and protected area management needs, as

well as prioritized protected areas, identified in the online survey, and identify any additional

threats and management needs.

3. Determine the rationale for NCTF conservation goals and priorities discussed in the online

survey, discuss the feasibility of these goals and priorities, and identify any additional NCTF goals

and priorities.

4. Determine the rationale for funding allocation criteria and guidelines identified in the online

survey, and identify any additional potential NCTF criteria and guidelines.

5. Understand the goals, values, and desires for the NCTFs, as well as current existing operations

manuals, policies, and guidelines for the NCTFs.

Opening Script

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today; your thoughts and opinions are very valuable to

this project! As you may know, recently The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the World Bank hired Blue

Earth Consultants, LLC (Blue Earth) to assist with a project on sustainable financing of Eastern Caribbean

Marine Ecosystems. This project aims to address threats to marine and coastal resources and protected

area management challenges in the Eastern Caribbean. As part of this project, Blue Earth is assessing the

key threats to ecosystem health and management priorities in two Eastern Caribbean countries: Antigua

and Barbuda and St. Lucia. Blue Earth will also develop recommendations for grant-making that will


occur through National Conservation Trust Funds (NCTFs) in these countries, which will provide funding

to support protected area management.

This interview is following up on the results of the survey that you participated in recently and will

provide an opportunity to validate and expand on online survey findings and explore in-depth key

ecosystem threats, protected area management needs and priorities, priority protected areas in [country

name], and potential goals and guidelines for [fund name].

Before we begin, I would like to note that this interview is confidential; thus any information that you

share with us today that could reveal your identity will not be linked to your name when shared with TNC

and the World Bank.

Do you have any questions for me before we begin?

Background

1. How long have you been with [organization name] and could you describe your role at

[organization name]?

2. How long have you been involved in management and financing of marine protected areas in

[country name]?

Section 1: Key Threats to Ecosystem Health and Protected Area Management

Internal Objectives

Objective 1: Discuss the preliminary findings of the online survey, including: key ecosystem

threats and protected area management needs; prioritized protected areas; NCTF conservation

goals and priorities; and criteria and guidelines for NCTF funding allocations.

Objective 2: Determine the rationale for key ecosystem threats and protected area management

needs, as well as prioritized protected areas, identified in the online survey, and identify any

additional threats and management needs.

Script: In this set of questions, we will discuss some of the main survey findings regarding ecosystem

threats and protected area management needs. We will also discuss any additional threats and

management needs for protected areas in Antigua and Barbuda?

1. In the survey, we provided respondents with a list of potential threats to marine ecosystem

health, including: climate change, invasive species, pollution, overfishing, recreational use and

tourism, and poor management of marine ecosystems. The top three identified threats were

[list threats].

a. Do you agree with this prioritization?

i. [If yes] If so, could you please explain why you agree with it, and provide more

rationale as to why these are considered to be the top threats to marine

ecosystems in Antigua and Barbuda?


ii. [If no] Could you explain which other threats you think are priorities for your

country, and could you please explain your rationale?

iii. Are there any additional threats you would cite, and if so, could you explain

these threats?

2. In the survey, respondents ranked the management effectiveness of protected areas in the

country. On average, they ranked it as [insert average ranking].

a. Could you explain why you think this was the average ranking?

b. Could you describe what you think are the strengths of protected area management in

your country?

c. Could you describe what you see as the weaknesses of protected area management in

your country?

d. Could you please describe any ways you see to improve the protected area effectiveness

in your country?

3. In the survey, we provided respondents with a list of needs for effective protected area

management, including: a strong legal framework to support management; developing a strong

management plan; building operational capacity to support strong enforcement of protected

areas; building capacity for ongoing monitoring of protected areas; building operational capacity

to coordinate outreach and education related to protected areas; fostering trust, support, and

engagement of stakeholders to support protected area management; and sustainable financing

to support protected area management. The top three identified management needs were [list

needs].


i. [If yes]If so, could you please explain why you agree with it, and provide more

rationale as to why these are considered to be the top management needs in

Antigua and Barbuda?

ii. [If no] Could you explain which other need you think are priorities for your

country, and could you please explain your rationale?

iii. Are there any additional needs that you would cite, and if so, could you explain

these needs?

Section 2. NCTF Goals and Priorities

Internal Objectives

Objective 3: Determine the rationale for NCTF conservation goals and priorities discussed in the

online survey, discuss the feasibility of these goals and priorities, and identify any additional

NCTF goals and priorities.

Objective 4: Determine the rationale for funding allocation criteria and guidelines identified in

the online survey, and identify any additional potential NCTF criteria and guidelines.

Script: In this section, we will discuss the identified MEPA Trust goals and priorities, as well as potential

criteria that could be used to guide funding.


4. In the survey, we asked respondents to rank protected areas in Antigua and Barbuda on a scale

of High Priority, Medium Priority, and Low Priority. The protected areas we asked respondents

to rate were [list].

a. The protected areas listed as High Priority are [list].

i. Could you explain why you think these protected areas were listed as high

priority?

ii. Do you agree with these ratings? Why or why not?

iii. Are there any additional protected areas you would rank as High Priority, and if

so, why?

b. The protected areas listed as Medium Priority are [list].

i. Could you explain why you think these protected areas were listed as Medium

priority?


iii. Are there any additional protected areas you would rank as Medium Priority,

and if so, why?

c. The protected areas listed as Low Priority are [list].

i. Could you explain why you think these protected areas were listed as Low

priority?


iii. Are there any additional protected areas you would rank as Low Priority, and if

so, why?

5. We provided respondents with a list of potential fund priorities that the MEPA Trust could

consider focusing on when allocating funding. These include: climate change resilience;

managing invasive species; controlling pollution; limiting overfishing; managing sustainable

recreational use and tourisms; supporting rare and endangered species; enhancing ecological

connectivity; increasing capacity to management marine ecosystems; creating sustainable

financing mechanisms to support protected area management systems; and increasing

education and awareness regarding protected areas.

a. The top three identified fund priorities were [list needs].

i. Do you agree with this prioritization?

1. [If yes] If so, could you please explain why you agree with it, and

provide more rationale as to why these are considered to be the top

funding priorities in Antigua and Barbuda?

2. [If no] Could you explain what you could include as top funding

priorities for your country, and could you please explain your rationale?

3. Are there any additional protected area funding priorities that you

would cite, and if so, could you explain these needs?

6. We provided respondents with a potential list of criteria that could be useful to think about

when determining how protected area funding should be allocated in Antigua and Barbuda.

These included:

Protected area size


Managing entity type and capacity

Current ecological condition of protected area (e.g., highly degrade, healthy, or pristine)

Ecosystem types presents

Presence of endangered and rare species

Presence of land-sea connections

Ecological connectivity

Amount of time protected

Amount of available funds to support protected area management

Social capital associated with site

Political will for site protection


i. [If yes] If so, could you please explain why you agree with it, and provide more

rationale as to why you would use these as criteria to select protected areas to

fund in Antigua and Barbuda?

ii. [If no] Could you explain what you would include the main criteria for

determining protected area funding, and could you explain your rationale?

iii. Are there any additional protected area funding criteria that you would suggest

to select protected areas to fund, and if so, could you explain these needs?

Section 3. NCTF Goals, Values, and Existing Procedures

Internal Objectives

Objective 5: Understand the goals, values, and desires for the NCTFs, as well as current

existing operations manuals, policies, and guidelines for the NCTFs.

7. What do you see as the main goals for the MEPA Trust? Could you explain why you think these

should be its main goals?

8. What do you see as the core values for the MEPA Trust, and why do you see these as the main

values?

a. How do you think these values should be used to guide the allocation of protected area

funding in [country name]?

9. Where do you see the MEPA Trust in five years?

a. What would you like it to have achieved, and why?

10. Could you briefly describe the existing operational policies in place for the MEPA Trust?

a. Do you have any suggestions regarding how you would strengthen these existing

operational policies?

b. Are there any operational policies missing that you think should be added?

11. We have reviewed [list documents related to the fund]. Do you have any additional suggestions

regarding the relevant documents related to the goals, priorities, and procedures for the MEPA

Trust?

Wrap Up


Script: That brings me to the end of my prepared questions!

12. Do you have anything else you would like to share regarding protected area key threats,

management needs, and the MEPA Trust priorities?

Script: It was great to hear your thoughts and opinions on [briefly summarize key themes heard during

the interview]. Thank you again for your time. If you have any further thoughts, please feel free to

contact me via email or telephone.

Thanks again, and enjoy the rest of your day!


Appendix E: Document Review Framework

TNC Sustainable Financing and Management of the Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystems Project

Data Collection Framework: Key Threats and Priorities

This document provides a framework for collecting and reviewing documents to inform the key threats to ecosystem health and statement of need for effective management of protected areas. Documents types will be shared with Blue Earth by the client team and will include the following: • Documents Stating Key Threats to Ecosystem Health, Outlining Conservation and Management Priorities and Needs: Country specific management and business plans for individual protected areas and system plans, biodiversity strategy documents, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, and other documents outlining threats to ecosystems or conservation and management needs. • National Conservation Trust Fund (NCTF) Governing Documents: Relevant trust governing documents such as bylaws, operational manuals, and any other relevant documents. • Legal Framework: Domestic legal framework and government rules that may affect the use of NCTF funds by government agencies (e.g., restrictions on financial flows, hiring of staff, and equipment acquisition) • In-Country Models of Grant-Making Priorities and Procedures: Models of successful grant-making processes and procedures from other bodies in the target geographies outlining funding priorities and/or grant-making processes and procedures. • Policies, Procedures, and Best Practices from Other Conservation Trusts: Models of and best practices from conservation trusts in other geographies related to successful grant-making practices and procedures that can be used as an example for the NCTFs. This data framework relates to the first type of documents stating key threats to ecosystems and outlining conservation and management priorities. Please see the second tab of this workbook for the inventory of the remaining types of documents. We will complement data from document review with the results of the online survey and key informants with experts and decision-makers in the country.

Categories Description

General Information

Document title Name of document

Internal hyperlink Folder extension for document

Year Year of publication

Author Name(s) of author(s)/organizations

Contact information List contact names, phone numbers, emails

Website Website of organization, if applicable

Document type List the type of document (e.g., management plan, trust governing document, grant-making protocol)

Geographic area of focus List area of focus of document (e.g., St. Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Eastern Caribbean, etc.)

Document description Short description of document and its purpose


Conservation and Management Priorities and Needs

Ecosystem threats Describe any identified threats to ecosystem health discussed in the document, and the ecosystem types identified

Biodiversity threats Describe any identified threats to biodiversity discussed in the document, and the ecosystem types identified

Priority regional geographies List any regional geographies referenced as conservation priorities in the document

Priority ecosystems List any ecosystems (e.g., mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds) referenced as conservation priorities in the document

Priority species List any species or species types (e.g., rare and endangered species) referenced as conservation priorities in the document

Priority protected areas, location, and size List any priority protected area sites referenced in the document, and if so, list the location and size (if available) of the protected area(s)

Management priorities Indicate any management priorities listed for the protected area/system and/or region

Management needs Describe any management needs for the protected area/system and/or region mentioned in the document

Biodiversity conservation priorities Indicate any biodiversity conservation priorities listed for the protected area/system

Biodiversity conservation needs Describe any biodiversity conservation needs for the protected area/system and/or region mentioned in the document


TNC Sustainable Financing and Management of the Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystems Project

Data Inventory and Collection Framework: Grant-Making Procedures

This document provides a framework for collecting, inventorying, and reviewing documents to inform the proposed NCTF criteria and indicative guidelines. Documents types will be shared with Blue Earth by the client team and will include the following: • Documents Stating Key Threats to Ecosystem Health, Outlining Conservation and Management Priorities and Needs: Country specific management and business plans for individual protected areas and system plans, biodiversity strategy documents, National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, and other documents outlining threats to ecosystems or conservation and management needs. • National Conservation Trust Fund (NCTF) Governing Documents: Relevant trust governing documents such as bylaws, operational manuals, and any other relevant documents. • Legal Framework: Domestic legal framework and government rules that may affect the use of NCTF funds by government agencies (e.g., restrictions on financial flows, hiring of staff, and equipment acquisition). • In-Country Models of Grant-making Priorities and Procedures: Models of successful grant-making processes and procedures from other bodies in the target geographies outlining funding priorities and/or grant-making processes and procedures. • Policies, Procedures, and Best Practices from Other Conservation Trusts: Models of and best practices from conservation trusts in other geographies related to successful grant-making practices and procedures that can be used as an example for the NCTFs. This data framework provides a system for organizing and reviewing the last four types of documents related to grant-making policies, procedures, frameworks, and best practices. Please see the previous tab for the data collection framework to assess key ecosystem threats and management priorities. We will complement data from document review with the results of the online survey and key informants with experts and decision-makers in the country.

Categories Description

General Information

Document title Name of document

Internal hyperlink Folder extension for document

Year Year of publication

Author Name(s) of author(s)/organizations

Contact information List contact names, phone numbers, emails

Website Website of organization, if applicable

Document type List the type of document (e.g., NCTF governing document, trust operational procedures, best grant-making practices, etc.)

Geographic area of focus List area of focus of document (e.g., St. Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, Eastern Caribbean, etc.)

Document description Short description of document and its purpose


Best practices advice Y/N as to whether the document contains descriptions of best practices for conservation trusts and grant-making

Grant-Making Procedures and Policies

Trust bylaws List any information included in the document related to trust bylaws

Operational structure List any information included in the document related to the trust fund's operational structure

Governance structure List any information included in the document related to the trust fund's governance structure

Funding procedures List any information included in the document related to the trust fund's funding procedures

Organizational funding (i.e., what funding supports the trust)

Indicate any information included in the document related to sources of funding used to support the trust

Organizational partners (only for NCTF documents for Antigua and Barbuda and St. Lucia)

List any organizational partners of the trust referenced in the document

Grant-making priorities List any information in the document related to funding priorities for the trust fund

Grant selection criteria List any information in the document related to criteria used to guide funding decisions

Grant solicitation and review process List any information in the document related to the grant solicitation and review process

Grantee monitoring and evaluation protocol List any information in the document related to monitoring and evaluation protocol used to monitor the progress of grantees (e.g., monitoring protocol, reporting procedures, final evaluation protocol)

Best practices for grant-making List any information included in the document related to best-practices for grant-making


Appendix F: List of Documents Reviewed

Antigua and Barbuda National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)

Environmental Sensitivity Index Map of the Islands of Antigua, Barbuda and Redonda

Assessment and Mapping of Antigua and Barbuda’s Ecosystem Resources and Promoting a

System of Protected Areas for Antigua and Barbuda; Antigua and Barbuda National Action Plan

for Protected Areas

The Barbuda (Coastal Zoning and Management) Regulations, 2014

The Caribsave Climate Change Risk Atlas (CCCRA) Climate Change Risk Profile for Antigua and

Barbuda

Medium-Term Development Strategy 2016 to 2020

Northeast Marine Management Area (NEMMA) 2007-2010 Management Plan

Environmental Management Strategy and Action Plan 2004-2009

Sustainable Island Resource Management Zoning Plan for Antigua and Barbuda (including

Redonda)

Report on Monitoring and Evaluation Options for the Sustainable Financing and Management of

Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystems for the OECS Project

Conflict of Interest Policy (GEF SGP Antigua and Barbuda)

SGP Country Programme Strategy for OP6

MEPA Trust Call for Proposals

Investing in Antigua & Barbuda, Capitalization Rationale for the Sustainable Island Resource

Framework (SIRF) Fund

Sustainable Financing & Management of Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystem Project

The WWF-World Bank Alliance’s Scorecard to Assess Progress in Achieving Management

Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas adapted for Protected Areas of the Organisation

of Eastern Caribbean States

Environmental Protection and Management Act

By-Law No. 1 Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust, Inc.

Additional best practices documents


FOR MEPA Trust USE ONLY

Date Rec’d.: _________________________________ Project ID #: ________________________________

Screening: ❒ Eligible ❒ Ineligible

Appendix G: Example Concept Note Form

CALL FOR CONCEPT NOTES: Application Form

PART A – APPLICANT SUMMARY

1. Name of Organization:

2. Type of Organization: ❒CBO ❒CBO ❒NGO ❒Government ❒Other

3. Purpose of Organization:

4. Address:

5. Mailing Address (If different from above):

6. Contact Person(s): Position/Title:

7. Phone Number(s): (office) (cell) (fax)

8. Email: Website:

9. How long has your organization been in existence?

10. Is the organization registered? ❒Yes ❒No

11. How many projects has the organization implemented in the last five years?

12. Please list below the projects, donors and project budgets that have been implemented in the last five (5) years.

Project Name

Duration

Donor(s) Project Budgets From To

PART B – PROJECT SUMMARY

13. Project Title:


14. Estimated duration of project:

15. Is the project new or ongoing?

16. Is the project located in/around Codrington Lagoon and/or the Northeast Marine Management Area (NEMMA) or does it

have direct linkages and clear benefits to one or both PAs? Please indicate which PA this project focuses on:

❒Codrington Lagoon National Park ❒NEMMA

Please briefly explain how your project focuses on the PA(s):

17. Please provide a brief description of the project rationale:

(a) Please describe the main goal, outcomes, strategies, and measures of the project:

Goal:___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Outcomes: 1. ______________________________________________Strategies: 1.___________________________________

2._______________________________________________ 2.___________________________________

3._______________________________________________3.___________________________________

Example Measures: 1. __________________________ 2. ____________________________________________

3.___________________________ 4. ____________________________________________

18. Please list the key stakeholders and potential partners:

19. Please indicate how much money is being requested from the MEPA Trust:

20. Please list any co-financers and/or sources of matching funds:

21. Please outline the project timeline:

Name of Signatory: _______________________________________________________

Authorized Signature :______________________________________________________

Position: _______________________________________________________

Date: _______________________________________________________


Appendix H: Examples of Grant-Making Forms

Example Grant Agreement

Grant Recipient Agreement between

The Marine Ecosystems Protected Area Trust and

[NAME OF GRANTEE]

This Forest Conservation Grant Recipient Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of «Date» by and between the Parties listed below, namely:

(1) The MARINE ECOSYTEMS PROTECTED AREA TRUST, INC., a Non-Profit Company incorporated

under the Companies Act of 1995 in Antigua and Barbuda (the “MEPA TRUST”);

AND

(2) [NAME OF GRANTEE] (the “Grantee”).

WHEREAS The Project Proposal «ReferenceNumber» (the “Proposal”) submitted by the Grantee and

entitled «Project Title» (the “Project”) was selected by the MEPA Trust to receive xx dollars ($ x.xx) in

grant funding (hereinafter “the Grant”).

AND WHEREAS The MEPA Trust has accepted the advice of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and

the MEPA Trust Board to award the Grant subject to award the Grant subject to the terms and

conditions of this Agreement in the amount of xx dollars ($x.xx).

The Parties to this Agreement agree as follows:

DURATION OF GRANT

1. The Grant and by extension the Project shall begin as at the date of this Agreement until the «Date».

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GRANTEE

2. The Grantee shall:

2.1 Assume, execute and complete the tasks and services stated in the Proposal (attached hereto as Appendix I) and in strict adherence to the approved budget contained therein;

2.2 Ensure that the Grant is used only for one or more of the authorized purposes listed in Appendix II and never for any of the Prohibited Purposes listed therein;

2.3 Establish a separate interest bearing account (the “Receipts Account”) to receive the Grant disbursements at an authorized financial institution.


2.4 Deposit all Grant disbursements received into the receipts account within two (2) business days of receipt of the disbursement.

2.5 Maintain the Receipt Account as an interest bearing account until such time as these funds are used in accordance with the approved budget of the Proposal (or as otherwise approved by the MEPA Trust in writing) until the termination of the Project.

2.6 Keep at its own cost and expense, true, accurate, complete and current accounts and records relating to the Project in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and standards, as promulgated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of the Eastern Caribbean (“Acceptable Accounting Principles”) for verification of expenses that are paid or reimbursed with the Grant.

2.7 Maintain acceptable financial management systems throughout the term of the Project which must make specific provision for

2.7.1 Complete, up to date and factual disclosure of all financial activity (which includes but is not limited to disbursements and reimbursements of the Grant) under the Project;

2.7.2 Effective control over and accountability for all of the Grant, which shall be taken to include all property and assets acquired using the Grant under the Project;

2.7.3 A Performance Management Report which should provide comparisons of actual outlays versus budgeted Grant disbursements; and

2.7.4 Accounting records supported by source documentation.

2.8 Preserve and maintain all the accounts and records mentioned in two point eight (2.8) above, for a period of not less than six (6) years following the payment of such expense; and allow any member of the MEPA Trust or its authorized representative(s) during normal business hours to examine, copy and audit these records or accounts, or copy and deliver such documents to the requesting party within two (2) days of the receipt of the written request.

2.9 Submit to the MEPA Trust two hard copies of the

2.9.1 Project Financial Report by «Date»

2.9.2 Project Progress Report by «Date»

2.10 Ensure that all costs incurred are reasonable and in line with the objectives of the Project and in keeping with the approved budget.

2.11 Acknowledge the financial contribution of the Caribbean Biodiversity Fund and MEPA Trust, the x as well as the x, where the Project is being discussed or highlighted via whatever medium e.g. radio, television, the internet, print media etc.

2.12 Act in good faith in the pursuance of all Project related activities and responsibilities especially as this relates to the exercise of due care according to the accepted customs of sound professional practice and procedure.


2.13 Adhere to the terms and conditions of this Agreement which shall be taken to include all Appendices, written directions, instructions, rules or regulations of the Oversight Committee relating to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement which it receives through JPAT and pursuant to the terms hereof.

RESPONSIBILITY OF MEPA Trust

3. MEPA Trust shall

Make disbursements to the Grantee in such amounts, upon such terms and at such times as provided in written instructions from the MEPA Trust, and in accordance with the terms and subject to the conditions hereof; and

Replenish the imprest of the Grantee in a timely manner.

ASSIGNMENT

4. Except as authorized by written consent of the MEPA Trust:

The right to receive this Grant shall not be assignable;

Any attempt to assign, pledge, encumber, factor, discount or otherwise transfer the right to receive such funds by the Grantee shall be a material breach of this Agreement;

Any attempt to assign, pledge, encumber, or otherwise transfer (except as expressly provided herein) the amounts held in the Receipts Account established in accordance with Section 2.4 hereof shall be a material breach of this Agreement.

SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

5. This Grant Agreement shall be binding upon the respective successors and permitted assigns of the Parties hereto and shall not be assigned, delegated or otherwise transferred by a party without the prior written consent of MEPA Trust (such assignment, delegation or transfer must be authorized in writing).

REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES

6. The Grantee represents and warrants at the time of the signing of this Agreement, that -

It is a duly organized entity in good standing under the laws of Antigua and Barbuda;

The execution and/or performance of its obligations under this Agreement will not constitute a breach of, or conflict with, any other Agreement or arrangement whether written or oral, which shall be taken to include where applicable, its Articles or similar organizational agreement;

It is a an eligible grantee organization; and

All conflicts of interest have been declared.NO JOINT VENTURE

7. Each of the Parties hereto is an independent contractor with respect to this Agreement -


Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as establishing a partnership or joint venture relationship between and among the parties hereto.

No employee, agent, officer, director or other representative of any Party shall, by reason of this Agreement, be considered an

Employee of, or be entitled to employee or fringe benefits of, the other Party;

Agent or legal representative of the other Party for any purpose.

Without limitation of the foregoing, no Party hereto is granted by this Agreement any right or authority to assume or create any obligation or responsibility or to make any representation or warranty, express or implied, on behalf of or in the name of the other Party or to otherwise bind the other Party in any manner.

LIABILITY OF GRANTEE

8. The Grantee is solely and totally responsible for the payment of any claims for loss, damage, personal injury or loss, death or other resultant personal injury suffered by members of its staff or any third party as a result of any act or omission which occurs during the implementation of the Project.

AMENDMENT AND DECOMMITTMENT

9. The Grant Agreement –

Shall be amended only by a written instrument signed by both Parties, and in accordance with the written instruction;

May be decommissioned for any of the reasons listed in the MEPA Trust’s policies.

SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION

10. The Grant may be suspended or terminated by MEPA Trust by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the representative of the Grantee listed in Clause 14.2.2 of the intention to suspend or terminate.

Where the Grant is terminated, the Grantee may claim payment for acceptable and allowable work performed in the course of implementation of the Project and for all obligations that -

Do not exceed the maximum payable;

Cannot be cancelled; and

Were made before the termination notice was signed.

The Grantee is still bound by the terms of Clause 19 and more specifically Clause 2.8 despite the early termination of the Grant.

Suspension or termination of the Grant for cause may be based on one or more of the following –


Significant deviation by the Grantee from the scope of work or work schedule outlined in the Project Proposal;

Failure by the Grantee to provide proof of successful implementation of the Project in its progress reports;

The budget is deemed to at risk of exceeding the approved allocation; and

The Grantee has breached the terms of the Grant Agreement.

Where a decision is taken to terminate the Grant

Written notice of the intent to terminate (a “Deficiency Notice”) should be sent by the MEPA Trust to the Grantee; and

The Grantee shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of such Deficiency Notice, take all steps necessary to rectify the matters identified in such notice.

Upon delivery of the Deficiency Notice, no further payments shall be made by the MEPA Trust or Fund Administrator, as applicable, to the Grantee, unless and until the matters identified in the Deficiency Notice are rectified to the satisfaction of the MEPA Trust.

In the event that the matters identified in the Deficiency Notice are not rectified to the satisfaction of the MEPA Trust within this thirty (30) day period, then the FCA Grantee shall immediately –

Have no further right to receive funds under this Agreement;

Transfer to an account designated by the MEPA Trust, all Income then held in its (Grantee’s) Receipts Account; and

Pay to the MEPA TRUST an amount equal to any portion of Income which it used for a purpose not authorized by this Agreement.

All of the rights and obligations of the Grantee under this Agreement (other than accrued obligations that have not yet been discharged by the Grantee) shall terminate automatically without any further action of the Parties hereto.

The MEPA Trust shall have the right to exercise any right or remedy which may be available under any applicable law or proceed by appropriate court action to enforce the terms of this Agreement.

REFUND OF GRANT

11. The Grantee may be required to refund any portion of the Grant where it is determined that it has been used for purposes not authorized by the budget or is not in keeping with the objectives of this Agreement.

WAIVER


12. No provision of this Grant Agreement may be waived orally, but only by a written instruction signed by the Party against whom enforcement of the waiver is sought and consented to in writing by the MEPA Trust.

ENTIRE AGREEMENT

13. This Grant Agreement and the Appendices contain the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any provision, representation, warranty, term, condition, promise, duty or liability, contained herein whether expressed or implied shall be binding upon either Party as well as its successors unless this Agreement states otherwise. Prior or contemporaneous understandings or agreements, whether written or oral, among the Parties with respect to any subject matter are hereby superseded in their entireties.

NOTICES

14. All notices, consents, requests, instructions, approvals and other communications provided for herein shall

Be in writing and shall be deemed validly given

On the date of delivery when delivered by hand;

On the date of transmission when sent by facsimile transmission during normal business hours with telephone confirmation of receipt;

On the date of receipt in accordance with the records of receipt of a reputable overnight courier that maintains records of receipt

In each case in accordance with the notice information set forth in below –

If upon the MEPA Trust to:

MEPA Trust Secretariat, The Department of the Environment #1 Victoria Park, Botanical Gardens, Factory Rd. St John's, Antigua

If upon the Grant Recipient to:

Name of Grantee Address of Grantee Address of Grantee

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

15. The Grantee shall have complete and total ownership of any intellectual property derived from the activities funded by the Project, but shall allow any –


Non-proprietary information related to transactions under the Project to be made publicly available; and

Creative work developed by the FCA Grantee under the Project, including written, graphic, audio, visual and other materials, contributions, applicable work product and production elements whether on disk, paper, tape digital file or other media, (the “Creative Work”) to be used by the MEPA Trust.

REMEDIES CUMULATIVE

16. The rights, powers, remedies and privileges provided in this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights, powers, remedies and privileges provided by applicable law.

FURTHER ASSURANCES

17. Each Party hereto shall execute and deliver such additional documents and perform such acts as are reasonably requested by the other Party in order to fully effect the intent of this Grant Agreement.

GOVERNING LAW

18. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Antigua and Barbuda without, giving effect to its principles or rules of conflict of laws to the extent such principles or rules would require or permit the application of the laws of another jurisdiction.

SURVIVAL

19. The terms of Sections 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 4, 6, 8, 9 and other sections of this Agreement which by their nature are intended to be applicable beyond the termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. The Marine Ecosystems Protected Areas Trust, Inc. By________________________________ Name: Title: [NAME OF GRANTEE] By_______________________________ Name: Title:


Example End of Project Form

MARINE ECOSYTEMS PROTECTED AREA TRUST

END OF PROJECT FORM 1. PROJECT INFORMATION NAME OF PROJECT

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION #

NAME OF GRANTEE

GRANT AND DISBURSEMENT RECORD

AMOUNT APPROVED $

DATE APPROVED

AMOUNTS DISBURSED

DATE OF DISBURSEMENTS

1

2

REPORTING RECORD

TYPE OF REPORT (PROGRESS , FINANCIAL, FINAL)

REPORTING PERIOD

DATE RECEIVED


2. FINANCIAL STATUS

APPROVED BUDGET

AMOUNT SPENT

VARIANCE

OTHER / AUDITOR

TOTAL PROJECT COST

APPROVED BUDGET

LINE ITEMS

AMOUNT

APPROVED

AMOUNT

DISBURSED

AMOUNT SPENT

VARIANCE

REASON FOR VARIANCE (BE VERY CONCISE) A) MEPA TRUST BUDGET B) NGO AND OTHER FINANCIAL INPUT


3. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS:

STARTING DATE OF PROJECT

DATE OF COMPLETION APPROVED

ACTUAL

APPROVED

ACTUAL

REASON FOR VARIANCE

4. ACHIEVEMENT OF OUTCOMES PROJECT OBJECTIVES

LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1-unsatisfactory 2-needs improvement 3-satisfactory 4-very good 5-excellent

5. REASONS FOR LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EACH OUTCOME


6. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS: REVIEW COMPLETED BY

DATE


Appendix I: Example Conflict of Interest Policy

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY

(Antigua and Barbuda MEPA Trust)

INTRODUCTION: MEPA Trust has deemed it necessary to state clearly what constitutes conflict of

interest in the operations of its grant-making program. This issue is very relevant to Small Island

Developing States (SIDS) where the human resource pool is very small and where there is a constant

request for service from the same cadre of skilled people. The MEPA Trust is aware that the best

remedy for conflict of interest is to completely avoid any direct or indirect possibility of it occurring, but

it is equally evident to the MEPA Trust that such a strict position shall leave it dysfunctional as the pool

of resource persons it can depend on will be severely diminished and persons will be reluctant to serve

on the MEPA Trust’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). It is therefore with this in mind that the

following policy is promulgated for strict adherence.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI): Within the context of the MEPA Trust, COI will exist whenever a member

or members of the TAC has a Conflict of Roles (COR) in which they can influence a decision whether

directly or indirectly and benefit from or cause an adverse result to a prospective grantee. For example,

where a member of the TAC is a member of a Civil Society Organisation (CSO) that has applied for a

grant, that member will find himself or herself in a duo-role, id est, being an applicant and decision

maker in which case a COR cum COI will exist. Another example is where a member of the TAC is hired

as a paid consultant on a project funded by the MEPA Trust, in which case it can be construed that the

individual is a Tri-actor, id est, applicant, decision maker and direct beneficiary, which is an obvious case

of COR and COI and should always be avoided.

PROCEDURES: Where there is a suspected or actual COI situation the following procedures will be

followed:

Full and Early Disclosure: as soon as the proposal is submitted whether at the Concept Note and/or Full Proposal Stage whichever is first, the Coordinator shall immediately inform the TAC of the project and the name of the group submitting it. At this time, the member or members of the TACwith links to the project will immediately inform the Coordinator, the Board, and other members of the TAC of the exact nature of his or her association with the group and request leave to recuse himself or herself from all decisions concerning the said proposal and further, shall refrain from any acts that can be interpreted as attempts to influence the decision such as trying to influence members of the TAC.

Transparency: Information and the decision-making process on the project in question shall be available to anyone who request such information and in particular if there is an accusation of COI. Information and decision making processes shall not be a secret in keeping with the value of transparency of the MEPA Trust.

Documentation: Towards ensuring transparency, all decisions made by the TACshall be documented or minuted, with the names of the persons making the decision and the date of the decision. All such documentation shall become permanent records of the MEPA Trust.

Selection Process: the project selection process for all projects including those with the possibility of direct or indirect COI shall be the same with no exceptions unless determined by the TAC.


MITIGATION: Noting that COI can be direct or indirect and legally is not a wrong unless it results in

wrongdoing through deliberate actions which results in benefit to an individual or adverse

consequences to another; and further noting that COI can be a perception rather that a fact, the

following mitigating measures shall be taken:

Exemption: An individual who has direct or indirect links to a project will immediately recuse himself or herself from all decisions concerning the project and only volunteer information if asked by the TAC.

Contributions to Project: No member of the TAC shall offer him or herself as a paid consultant to any project under consideration or approved by the TAC. Members however can give advice to project proponents and/or grantees gratis during the project design and implementation stages.

Transference: In the case of a TAC member having a COI and having followed the aforementioned procedures, the other TAC members shall review the proposal and arrive at a decision which they shall communicate to the Board through the Coordinator. In such a case, the decision of the TAC shall not be final and the Board shall have the final decision on approval. The act of transference will avoid country COI situations which can be detrimental and blemishing to the MEPA Trust. In a case where direct or indirect COI is known and there are several members of the TAC associated with an applicant, the TACshall appoint an independent group comprising of neutral members of the TAC to review the proposal and make a decision on the project. The decision of such a group shall be final.

Expulsion: Where it is found that a member of the TAC has not followed the full disclosure guideline and has in addition knowingly participated in the decision making process of a project, the member shall be requested to and shall immediately demit office and shall not be eligible for selection to the TAC in the future. In the case where a project was successful in receiving a grant, the grantee shall be informed of that decision and the proposal shall be recalled for an independent review by a select independent panel appointed by the TAC from among its neutral members. If members of the TAC have gained financially from this process they agree to immediately return any direct or indirect financial benefit to the project.

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TAC AT A DULY COSTITUTED MEETING ON THE [Insert date].

Name: Signature: Date:


Appendix J: Example Grant-Making Criteria Score Sheet

This grant-making criteria score sheet is an example of a document that the MEPA Trust could use to evaluate grant proposals against several

categories of criteria. The MEPA Trust and the TAC will develop Eligibility Criteria each year to determine priority ecosystems and sites and to

score grant proposals against these criteria. The MEPA Trust and the TAC will use the Goal Criteria to evaluate the potential for each proposal to

support progress towards the goals outlined in this plan. Finally, the MEPA Trust and the TAC will use the Process Criteria to determine that the

grant proposals and grantees meet basic funding requirements. The MEPA Trust may adapt or add criteria as needed depending on the type of

applicant (e.g., applications from Antiguan students enrolled at accredited tertiary institutions may be given priority over applications from other

students).

# Element Criteria Scoring (Excellent, Satisfactory, Poor) Notes/Comments

Eligibility Categories

1 Presence of endangered and rare species

Expected ability of the proposal to benefit Antigua and Barbuda’s rare and endangered species.

Poor – The proposal does not address the criteria. Satisfactory – The proposal addresses the criteria with some shortcomings present. Excellent – The proposal excels in addressing the criteria, and any shortcomings present are minor.

2 Current ecological condition

Expected ability of the proposal to 1) protect healthy sites/ecosystems or 2) restore degraded sites/ecosystems.

Poor – The proposal does not address either criteria. Satisfactory – The proposal addresses one criteria well with some shortcomings present. Excellent – The proposal excels in one criteria, and any shortcomings present are minor.

3 Amount of available funds for PA management

Expected ability of the proposal to efficiently leverage financial resources to improve the management of PAs




Eligibility Categories

4 Urgency for taking actions in the site

Expected ability of the proposal to prevent further ecosystem degradation and worsening site conditions.


5 Level of infrastructure and management capacity

Expected ability of the proposal to 1) utilize existing infrastructure and management capacity and 2) improve existing infrastructure and management capacity

Poor – The proposal does not address any of the criteria. Satisfactory – The proposal addresses one criteria well, or both with a number of shortcomings present. Excellent – The proposal excels in both criteria, and any shortcomings present are minor.



Goal Categories

6 Protect and enhance ecosystems

Expected ability of the proposal to result in 1) increased acreage of restored habitat, 2) protection of wetlands and watersheds with carbon sequestration potential, 3) reduced disaster risk, and 4) strengthened resilience of ecosystems against climate change and unsustainable development

Poor – The proposal does not address any of the criteria. Satisfactory – The proposal addresses 1-2 criteria well, or all with a number of shortcomings present. Excellent – The proposal excels in 2-4 criteria, and any shortcomings present are minor.

7 Strengthen the governance and management effectiveness of PAs

Expected ability of the proposal to result in 1) increased compliance with regulations and 2) improved outreach and education on effective PA governance and management


8 Increased human and financial resources for PAs from governments and communities

Expected ability of the proposal to 1) increase social capital and political will for PAs and 2) increase sustainable funding to support PA management, establishment, and implementation




Process Categories

9 Institutional capacity and track record of grantee

The application demonstrates evidence of 1) the past achievements of grantee, 2) strong organization leader, and 3) previous successful projects.

Poor – The grant addresses only one or none of the criteria, and there are serious inherent weaknesses. Satisfactory – The grant addresses two or three of the criteria well, but a number of shortcomings are present. Excellent – The grant address all criteria, and any shortcomings present are minor.

10 Measurable outcomes and impact

Grant includes: 1) a well-articulated strategy and 2) methods to measure/evaluate grant outcomes.


11 Realistic budget and project timeline

Grant proposes: 1) a realistic project budget and 2) a realistic project timeline

Yes – The grantee meets both criteria. No – The grantee does not meet both criteria.

12 Sustainability Grantee demonstrates 1) organizational durability and 2) an ability to implement activities for many years

Yes – The grantee meets both criteria. No – The grantee does not meet both criteria.


Appendix K: Example of Request for Proposals

Draft Call for Proposals

The MEPA Trust Fund is seeking (soliciting) applications from eligible registered individuals, businesses,

churches and local community groups/organizations under its grant making framework. The project

proposals will support and fund national conservation goals and priorities according to our NBSAP to

reduce threats to land and marine ecosystems and strengthen the effective management of Protected

Areas. Innovative ideas, local communal practices that incorporate traditional knowledge within coastal

communities that impact positively on the coastal resources are being encouraged.

The MEPA Trust would support conservation, restoration, and other types of activities that impact

positively on the PAs in Antigua and Barbuda. The grant making process will conform to the grant

making policies and procedures in the Operations Manual of the Trust Fund and the Grant-Making

Framework. The MEPA Trust is the outcome of the GEF-World Bank/TNC implemented” Sustainable

Financing and Management of the Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystems Project” with funds provided

through the Caribbean Biodiversity Fund and contributes to the implementation of the St. George’s

Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability and the Environmental Protection and

Management Bill of 2015.

Approximately EC$350,000.00 is allocated under this Fund. Project application may range from

EC10,000.00-EC25,000.00. The MEPA Trust recognizes that not all stakeholders in the areas targeted

may have access to adequate financing in order to capitalize on their existing or new livelihoods. The

MEPA Trust would therefore assist in the building and strengthening of the livelihoods assets of the

potential beneficiaries.

The application form and the concept note and other required attachments (hard copies and/or

electronic copies) to the MEPA Trust Secretariat, The Department of the Environment, #1 Victoria Park,

Botanical Gardens, factory Rd, St John's, Antigua. email: [email protected]

Deadline for applications is:

Short listing of Concept notes: [insert deadline]

The deadline for submitting full proposals: [insert deadline]

Award Decisions are expected by: [insert deadline]

Application forms and other relevant documents can be found on the MEPA trust website

(https://mepatrustantiguabarbuda.org) and on the Department of the Environment website at

www.environmentdivision.info.

Criteria/Eligibility

The funds may be utilized for but not limited to, the provision of technical support, capacity building,

market research/studies, basic equipment, tools, and other materials for community stakeholders

engaged in direct biodiversity conservation and regeneration, survey and research, biodiversity

conservation education and skills development, hunting/fishing/wildlife control, sustainable tourism,

and monitoring, as well as the conservation of wetlands and watersheds that serve as carbon sinks.

https://mepatrustantiguabarbuda.org/

http://www.environmentdivision.info/


Applicants for funding support will be evaluated on the following criteria:

Focal PA: Located in/around Codrington Lagoon and NEMMA or have direct linkages and clear

benefits to Codrington Lagoon and NEMMA

Protect and enhance ecosystems: Results in increased acreage of restored habitat, reduced

disaster risk, increased carbon sequestration, and/or strengthened resilience of ecosystems

against climate change and unsustainable development

Strengthen the governance and management effectiveness of PAs: Results in increased

compliance with regulations and improved outreach and education on effective PA governance

and management

Increased human and financial resources for PAs from governments and communities: Results

in increased social capital and political will for PAs and increased sustainable funding to support

PA management, establishment, and implementation

Presence of endangered and rare species: Benefits Antigua and Barbuda’s rare and endangered

species

Current ecological condition of the protected area: Protects healthy sites/ecosystems or

restores degraded sites/ecosystems

Amount of available funds for PA management: Efficiently leverages financial resources to

improve the management of PAs

Urgency for taking actions in the PA: Prevents further ecosystem degradation and worsening

site conditions

Level of infrastructure and management capacity: Utilizes existing infrastructure and

management capacity and improves existing infrastructure and management capacity

Institutional capacity and track record of grantee: Evidences past achievements of grantee,

strong organization leader, previous successful projects.

Measurable outcomes and impact: Demonstrates a well-articulated strategy and methods to

measure/evaluate grant outcomes

Realistic budget and project timeline: Proposes a realistic project budget and a realistic project

timeline

Sustainability: Demonstrates organizational durability and an ability to implement activities for

many years


Appendix L: Focus Group Presentation

See the file entitled, “MEPA_Trust_Appendix_L_Focus_Group_100316”


Appendix M: Focus Group Participant List

Name Organization

Sashagay Middleton Department of Environment

Dr. Evelyn Weekes Agro-Ecology Society of Antigua and Barbuda

Christine Young Galley Bay Resort

Ruleo Camacho Department of Environment

Jasiel Murphy National Parks Authority

Calvin Gore Barbuda Council

Ogden Burton Codrington Lagoon National Park, Department of Environment

Anne-Marie Gore Barbuda Community Development-Agriculture Group

Ruth Spencer Small Grants Program, MEPA Trust

Devon Warner Barbuda Fisherfolk Association

Melvin Samuel Spearfishers

John Birk Dive Shop Owner

Gary Gore MEPA Trust

Ashton Williams The Environmental Awareness Group

Eli Fuller Antigua Conservation Society

Martin Dudley n/a

Shanna Emmanuel Department of Fisheries, Saint Lucia

Brittany Isabelle The Nature Conservancy

Maureen Hyman Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs, MEPA Trust

Sharon Dalso CDD


Appendix N: MEPA Trust Key Research Findings Presentation

See the file entitled, “MEPA_Trust_Appendix_N_Research_Findings_100316”


Appendix O: MEPA Trust Board Meeting Attendees

Name Organization

Sashagay Middleton Department of Environment

Ruth Spencer Small Grants Program, MEPA Trust

Anne-Marie Gore B.C.D.A Group

Ogden Burton Codrington Lagoon National Park, Department of Environment

Calvin Gore Barbuda Council

Natalya Lawrence The Environmental Awareness Group

Dr. Evelyn Weekes Agro-Ecology Society of Antigua and Barbuda

Shanna Emmanuel Department of Fisheries, Saint Lucia

Brittany Isabelle The Nature Conservancy

Gary Gore MEPA Trust

Christine Young Galley Bay Resort and Spa

Maureen Hyman Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs, MEPA Trust

Blue Earth Consultants, LLC 1 | P a g e DRAFT MEPA Trust ... · Blue Earth Consultants, ......

Documents

Transcript of Blue Earth Consultants, LLC 1 | P a g e DRAFT MEPA Trust ... · Blue Earth Consultants, ......